Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: daman on April 20, 2009, 03:42:15 AM
-
If 3 adults want to marry each other, why can't it be so?
-
This doesn't belong here, it belongs in Rants and Stuff (http://www.timewastersguide.com/forum/index.php?board=3.0)
EDIT:
Also, in response to the question at hand.
It is for the same reason's many people didn't want to allow gays to marry. The things they are associated with through ignorance. Many people hear polygamy and instantly associate it with marrying young girls off that aren't willing to be wed at that point in time. The same way people hear the word gay and instantly assume pedophilia.
-
No, but not for a religious reason. I have yet to connect with someone on the level that I think would be necessary for a marriage to work long-term, and then maintaining that relationship, growing and understanding each other together takes a lifetime as well. In short, if I married twice, I don't think I could maintain the relationship in a way that would be fair to both women.
Just me knowing how I am. I don't condemn it, I just don't think I could handle it.
-
No, *I* probably wouldn't, however, I personally think people should be allowed to if they want to. This goes into the realm of people pushing their views off on others, as a side note, I also think gays should be allowed to wed.
-
Not a chance. I have one, that's all I can handle thank you very much!
-
No, *I* probably wouldn't, however, I personally think people should be allowed to if they want to. This goes into the realm of people pushing their views off on others, as a side note, I also think gays should be allowed to wed.
They're staring to. Soon it will be everywhere. I assume it won't too long after that polygamy gets more attention.
-
No, *I* probably wouldn't, however, I personally think people should be allowed to if they want to. This goes into the realm of people pushing their views off on others, as a side note, I also think gays should be allowed to wed.
They're staring to. Soon it will be everywhere. I assume it won't too long after that polygamy gets more attention.
yeah, but it seems like everytime they get a step ahead, something and/or someone comes along and forces them back again.
-
Well right now we have basically a completely liberal govenment and the way states are moving for gay marriag now is through the courts. (will link when I'm on a computer). This way is much better and more efficient. Polygamists would do well to move this way as well.
-
I understand why the law is the way it is man is jealous ect. the chances of it working are very slim... still I voted maybe
-
Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gay_marriage_vermont) is a link that is talking about the recent pass of gay marriage legislation in Vermont. I can't find the one that spent a good portion talking about how it was passed. This one mentions it briefly, but it isn't the one I initially read.
-
Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gay_marriage_vermont) is a link that is talking about the recent pass of gay marriage legislation in Vermont. I can't find the one that spent a good portion talking about how it was passed. This one mentions it briefly, but it isn't the one I initially read.
heh, anyone else find it funny that the article is like "Vermont barely passes same-sex marriage proposal. In other news, Sweden passes same proposal by a landslide."
-
Really, I don't think it's the government's place to define marriage. I think the best system would be for the government to hand out civil unions for anyone who wants to live together and merge their finances. Then churches and individuals can get married and then go get a civil union from the government. That also means that everyone can choose how they define marriage.
-
An excellent solution Eleaneth. My own mental struggles with the issue have arrived at pretty much the same place.
Unfortunately, in other forums, when I bring up the idea of removing government's role in 'marriage' altogether (leaving 'marriage' solely to religious institutions and 'civil unions' solely to government) I have met with frothy hatred from the proponents of same-sex marriage. From what I've seen and been told with great force, same-sex couples "Don't want civil unions, they want to be 'married'"
I'm curious to the opinions around here. What is the same sex objection to marriage=religious civilunion=government proposal?
I suspect in some of the cases I've run across it's nothing more than a desire to stick it to those hateful bigoted straights, hah, look at me I'm gay and MARRIED how do you like them apples?
Is there a more reasoned objection?
-
An excellent solution Eleaneth. My own mental struggles with the issue have arrived at pretty much the same place.
Unfortunately, in other forums, when I bring up the idea of removing government's role in 'marriage' altogether (leaving 'marriage' solely to religious institutions and 'civil unions' solely to government) I have met with frothy hatred from the proponents of same-sex marriage. From what I've seen and been told with great force, same-sex couples "Don't want civil unions, they want to be 'married'"
I'm curious to the opinions around here. What is the same sex objection to marriage=religious civilunion=government proposal?
I suspect in some of the cases I've run across it's nothing more than a desire to stick it to those hateful bigoted straights, hah, look at me I'm gay and MARRIED how do you like them apples?
Is there a more reasoned objection?
I think it's more of a "second class citizen" thing. That is, if they cant get *MARRIED* like everyone else, then they have to choose the alternative that they're restricted to, "Civil-Unions", which makes them feel discriminated against.
Personally, though, that wouldn't matter to me. If for whatever reason i wasnt allowed to get "Married", but i had the option for a "Civil-union", i'd do it. The reasoning would be like this: Does it function exactly like marriage, insofar as legal and fiscal obligations, and are we recognized as being "Together" and all that? If yes, then that's fine with me. A label doesnt mean anything to me, but im sure it does very much so to others.
Though, i wouldnt mind at all if "Marriage" became regulated by each individual religion, and "Civil-union" became a governmental thing. Personally, I think that's how it should be, anyways. Keeps religion out of the government, and the specifics of marriage is left up to the religion that governs their particular version, and the government can hand out the generic versions for those who don't care/can't.
-
Skar: I think the idea - and the name - of marriage is important to a lot of people. Marriage has connotations of intimacy etcetera that "civil union" does not. You don't grow up looking forward to a nice, happy civil union one day; you grow up thinking that one day you'll be married.
Even if it's a distinction in name only, it's still a distinction for a lot of people.
Besides, if two same-sex people want to get married, if we're all equal, why should they have to call it something different?
(Note: I mean that last comment as a part of the mentality that I think goes into the marriage vs civil union debate, and not to reignite the same-sex marriage issue as a whole.)
-
Skar: I think the idea - and the name - of marriage is important to a lot of people. Marriage has connotations of intimacy etcetera that "civil union" does not. You don't grow up looking forward to a nice, happy civil union one day; you grow up thinking that one day you'll be married.
Even if it's a distinction in name only, it's still a distinction for a lot of people.
Besides, if two same-sex people want to get married, if we're all equal, why should they have to call it something different?
(Note: I mean that last comment as a part of the mentality that I think goes into the marriage vs civil union debate, and not to reignite the same-sex marriage issue as a whole.)
Yeah, semantics and context can have a lot of prejudice behind it, which is what i think this objection relates to. Also, I think the fact that we have to rewrite how it's all done just to accommodate them is something they don't want, because it implies that they're somehow different.
-
Yes but the problem with handing it over to the churches is that some will contradict holy laws they are supposed to be upholding, while this is not a problem of mine i still believe it is wrong. I also believe those who are not a member of a certain branch of faith (denominations excluded this doesn't apply to a lutheran entering a methodist church to wed, ect.) shouldn't be able to marry in that paticular place of worship. This also would mean that i would be wed by a judge, as I'm a Theist and they have no churches because we are a confused group of fellows.
-
*** Content warning ***
TVLDS
Given that marriage and union in general is a religious issue, I don't think governmental involvement at any level is actually constitutional. By providing marriage licenses or civil union licenses or any other certification, the government is taking a stand and establishing defacto religion. Imagine if this were Baptism licenses, or Barmitzvah licenses or Ramadan Licenses. No one would have trouble seeing that the government has invaded an area that is constitutionally protected. Affirmative action for a sexual orientation will naturally lead to action on behalf of NAMBLA and bestiality groups. Imagine employers having to provide special accommodation for Furries to wear their costumes to work. It's getting ridiculous.
On the other hand, it's just as unconstitutional to force religious institutions, founded on a code of ethics or morals, to accept employees or members who are in violation of those moral standards. It directly inhibits the capacity to freely exercise their faith. "Congress shall pass no law. . ." The upshot is that any law that has passed must be interpreted in a way that it neither establishes, nor disestablishes a religion or inhibits the free exercise thereof. This pertains only to the US, where our founders foresaw this sort of abuse of power and the legislative process to oppress the majority to the benefit of a special minority or an oligarchy.
Minority rights are valuable, but US constitutional law only recognizes rights of the individual, not classes of people. Rights for a homosexual to pursue life liberty and happiness are protected. But the right to impose that individual's ethics and ideals on the majority or even force other individuals to be tolerant of those ideal is a fiction. The right to forcibly propagandized young people with a given minority's perspectives is an infringement on the rights of the individual young person to form his or her own opinions.
Rights for a group are never guaranteed, except where that group is a religious institution, the majority of the population or a militia. Why are these groups protected? So that a powerful minority cannot subjugate the majority, so that the majority cannot use political pressure to silence or eliminate the minority and so that if things ever get very badly along either path the people can defend themselves, like they did at Bunker Hill. Amazingly, the gestapo (Fatherland Security) just released a terrorist warning telling local law enforcement to spy on people who point this out. Who else was in the list of "potential threats"? Veterans returning from Iraq or Afgahanistan. Are they serious?
Try to suggest that to a political focus group. Right or left, politics these days are all about group identity, collectivism and group agenda. That's downright Anti-American. Even a certain author of speculative fiction of the alternate history type is pretty deeply embroiled in this mess. :)
Rant concluded. :D
-
Crickets. . .
ROFL
-
I am with the person that said to take marriage away from the government. Marriage, in and of itself, is a religious ritual, nothing more. The fact that government controls who can get married is a conflict of religious liberties. All person who want to legally bond should be in a civil union, marriage, if a person desires, should be relegated to religious ceremony and the marriages themselves should have no legal binding.
currently, civil unions, in the states which grant them, do NOT confer the same rights and priviledges as marriage, which is discrimination, no matter how you slice it.
Polygamy can be a bit convoluted. However, marital/civil union polygamy can work if there are proper guidelines. If a man wishes to marry two women, he should be able to as long as both women agree to it. However, the catch is, they also become married to each other, and if the man dies, they would still remain married to each other. this would do 2 things. It would cure issues with multiple birthings and custodial battles. Often in 3-way (or more) reltionships, one of the women chooses to stay home with teh children, regardless of who birthed them. The otehrs may work. But each, regardless of staying home or not, is a mother to all teh children and should be legally treated as such. The children should not be divvied up by genetics.
Ok, i ranted a bit, but i think yo9u get my point.
-
It's not an attempt to stick it to anyone. It's the idea that they are saying it's OK for us but not for you. That's what the problem is.
-
Given that marriage and union in general is a religious issue
This is not entirely true - marriage is first and foremost a social issue, which religions have picked up and run with (the Christian Church only really got heavily involved in officiating weddings during the Middle Ages), and which governments regulate to protect the government and property—government regulation of marriage also became a big thing during the Middle Ages, as kings and lords were very interested in keeping power consolidated. However, even during Roman Times, however, marriage was officiated by the state, and all Roman Citizens were expected to marry, for the explicit reason of having Roman children to strengthen the state. In ancient societies, marriage was a very, very important part of strengthening the state via children. (Marriage was necessary to help ensure legitimacy/Citizenship and also to resolve inheritance issues.)
Of course, we seem to have TOTALLY lost track of the point of marriage here in the modern era. Legalized marriages of convenience? Hello? What does that have to do with the point of marriage?
-
A social issue is not the same thing as a legal issue. If it were then ethnicity would be a matter of law. Yes governments have co-opted marriage for various reasons of pragmatism. But at it's heart, it is a matter for the local community, whether that is village tribe or religious association. Even under English Common Law it is enough to announce your agreement to be married and then live together. It would be a very sticky prospect to reform marriage laws to the point that they would respect the constitution, but this issue would be a non-starter if marriage were not a matter of law.
You mentioned immigration, but immigration is a relatively modern issue, as is personal identification. But even immigration is no longer an issue with marriage laws. The US Dept. of Immigration no longer gives citizenship to those who marry citizens. Instead, spouses have to apply and pass the same testing. In the mean time they only receive a visa. This puts spouses in nearly the same category as any other acquaintance.
-
Who mentioned immigration?
-
Seems to me that 'marriage' as an institution today has two components. Religious and Legal.
I haven't heard any serious proponents of same-sex marriage insisting that religious institutions recognize their marriages. (I have heard it from wackos but I ignored them) Serious proponents of same-sex marriage are after the legal consideration that our government extends to married couples: taxes, visitation rights, inheritance and so forth. And folks who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds don't have a secular leg to stand on when objecting to legal rights for same-sex married couples matching their own under the law.
So it seems the reasonable thing to do would be to separate the two. Religious institutions have no more business handing out legal status as married couples to their constituents than the government has dictating what spiritual status a religion may confer upon its constituents. Yes it would be sticky and a major change to how we function in our country but hey, when has that ever been a good reason not to do something right?
-
Sorry to double post but this is a separate topic and closer to the thread topic so...
Would I take a second wife? No idea. So much would have to change for that to become an option that the variables multiply far beyond my ability to guess at my own reaction.
Should taking a second wife be a legal option? Again not sure but there's more to be said about that one. My main concern about making polygamy, polyandry, chain marriages and so forth legal would be the effect on society. Would it strengthen our society? Would it promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for individuals in our nation? If we look at the nations on Earth that currently have legal institutions in place allowing for polygamy as examples, the simple answer would be a resounding "No." By their example it would result in massive state-supported oppression of women along with a host of other effects anathema to a free society.
But there are many more differences between our nation and those that have legal polygamy than just the polygamy thing. Perhaps those other differences are the cause of all the negatives. No way to tell. We can do thought experiments all day long and not come any closer to a real answer to the question, how would legalizing polygamy, polyandry, chain marriages and so forth change our society?
-
Sorry to double post but this is a separate topic and closer to the thread topic so...
Would I take a second wife? No idea. So much would have to change for that to become an option that the variables multiply far beyond my ability to guess at my own reaction.
Should taking a second wife be a legal option? Again not sure but there's more to be said about that one. My main concern about making polygamy, polyandry, chain marriages and so forth legal would be the effect on society. Would it strengthen our society? Would it promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for individuals in our nation? If we look at the nations on Earth that currently have legal institutions in place allowing for polygamy as examples, the simple answer would be a resounding "No." By their example it would result in massive state-supported oppression of women along with a host of other effects anathema to a free society.
But there are many more differences between our nation and those that have legal polygamy than just the polygamy thing. Perhaps those other differences are the cause of all the negatives. No way to tell. We can do thought experiments all day long and not come any closer to a real answer to the question, how would legalizing polygamy, polyandry, chain marriages and so forth change our society?
honestly, I think that all the negative associated with polygamy that you mentioned is because of the other differences in those countries. As far as our society, we have progressed far in the area of equal rights among genders, so I don't think it would cause that sort of backlash. Also, it's worth noting that if we legalize polygamy, we would have to legalize polyandry, and other chain marriages. It couldn't just be one, it would have to be all to maintain an air of freedom, otherwise people in the other sitautions would be oppressed.
-
You say that Eerongal, but then someone is going to argue back saying that if what you said was true we wouldn't have things such as the polygamist colonies that marry off young girls to old men and are made to have multiple children and serve as a handmaid to the man they're married to.
-
Should taking a second wife be a legal option? Again not sure but there's more to be said about that one. My main concern about making polygamy, polyandry, chain marriages and so forth legal would be the effect on society. Would it strengthen our society? Would it promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for individuals in our nation? If we look at the nations on Earth that currently have legal institutions in place allowing for polygamy as examples, the simple answer would be a resounding "No." By their example it would result in massive state-supported oppression of women along with a host of other effects anathema to a free society.
As I read this I thought of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein. Because the society developed without any government, but with modern sensibilities (modern being late sixties) there are a number of family groups mentioned. Prejudices against these different family arrangements back on Earth is also brought up.
My main arguement for or against any form of marriage is the safety and well-being of the individuals within the family group. For example, I think a woman with children living with a boyfriend is a really bad idea, because of the abuse statistics that go with that setup.
Our society is having a difficult time keeping at risk women and children safe as it is. Anything, including changing family structures, that further erodes the protection and support the weakest members of our society has is bad.
That does not necessarily include same-sex marriage, but the examples of polygamy I've seen, including friends who were children in polygamous families, tells me that this is not a policy we should endorse as a country.
-
HURRAY!!! Someone else mentioned Heinlein, i actually don't mind the idea of nesting in Stranger in a Strange Land however polygammy is rarely harmonious so the legality of it is understandable. Right or wrong it was done with good intentions those being to preserve domestic tranquility.
-
One thing that stands out is the repeated use of the word polygamy. Polygamy is the term for the criminal act of marrying more than one spouse. But it is gender neutral. One thing to remember, is the poly tradition for every "real-world" religion I've encountered is limited to polygyny, however polyandry or compound poly (one person having several spouses, while also being one of several spouses to another) are not real world traditions. Looking at primates that have similar structures, it's always polygynous. Where females mate with multiple males there is no nuclear structure. That's just an observation.
Marriage is about contractual agreements to restrict sexuality, share property, reserve reproductive rights and traditionally, to convey medical and civil power of attorney. The context and morality, has always been one that is religious. Someone cited earlier how the European countries had traditionally had a vested interest in marriage as a state institution. The important point is that these countries were bound to state religion. They also had and in most cases still have, state appointed clergy and state appointed hierarchy. This argue in favor of the exclusively religious nature of marriage and unions in general.
The same poster cited ancient peoples, but this argument is even more specious because in those same ancient nations the King and High Priest were the same individual, or the King was a religious figure sanctioned and authenticated by the religion. There are legal issues of basic biology and heritage that are intertwined in marriage and best sorted in marriage but marriage itself has always been an issue for the local community and inextricably intertwined with the dominant religion. Remember the antecedents to modern marriage were never pluralistic no matter how Hollywood propaganda wants to repaint history.
Lastly, given that marriage is as much about reproductive rights and inheritance, as it is about sexuality and companionship -- it's important to note that marriage has never been denied to homosexuals. I know that on first take this will seem like a glib snark. But the real gut level truth, is that homosexuals have always been free to marry any person of the opposite sex who would have them, and share in all the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals including reproduction and inheritance as well as companionship etc.
The whole issue is based on a fallacy. Homosexuals are not denied any right under California's marriage amendment, that is granted to anyother group including heterosexuals. If you think about his honestly and unemotionally for a moment you will see what I'm saying.
-
One thing that stands out is the repeated use of the word polygamy. Polygamy is the terms for the criminal act of marrying more than one spouse.
Now you just look a little stupid. Try looking up the definition of words like Polygamy (http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=polygamy&search=search) before you castigate others for misusing the word. I believe you were thinking of Bigamy (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigamy&db=luna).
The rest of your post is tortuous, it seems like much of it is tangential, and I had some trouble following it. Given your misuse of one of the words at the root of the current discussion I can't give the rest of what you say enough credence to bother untangling it.
Polite suggestion: Write out your point and then condense it to 25o words or less.
That's not a rule of posting, just a trick I personally use to help my writing be more clear and concise.
-
Skar, you really ought to look up polygamy. It is found in statutes, and it is not used in religious texts. You're response was needless pejorative and is really just a flame rather than a serious discussion, so I'm not really troubled that you can't bring yourself to read further. The text is far from tortuous but would be wasted on someone who is so easily stirred to petty insults.
-
@ reonard HA HA HA wasn't that a petty insult...
-
Not really, I was just saying that someone who gets aroused that easily is unlikely to read honestly enough to get anything of value out of it. It was basically a way of saying, "If that's how you feel and react, then by all means don't read it."
-
Renoard, you told Skar he ought to look up polygamy, in reply to a post in which he told you to look up polygamy and bigamy and provided dictionary definition links for each.
Think about that for a minute.
-
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 (http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=polygamy&search=search)
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 (http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=bigamy&search=search)
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?
-
But in the context of this conversation, we were dealing with religion and law as is regards marriage and multiples. The references in the New Testament, for instance, refers to polygyny in the context of the restriction that a church official must be monogynous (having one wife) "Monogamy" and "polygamy" are more modern terms and therefore not historical, and in the context of dealing with European and Ancient history irrelevant.
But here let me post definitions too.
po⋅lyg⋅y⋅ny
/pəˈlɪdʒəni/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [puh-lij-uh-nee] Show IPA
–noun
1. the practice or condition of having more than one wife at one time.
2. (among male animals) the habit or system of having two or more mates, either simultaneously or successively.
3. (among social insects) the condition of having two or more functioning queens in a colony.
4. Botany. the state or condition of having many pistils or styles.
Compare monogyny.
Origin:
1770–80; < Gk polygýn(aios) having many wives (see poly-, gyn- ) + -y 3
pol⋅y⋅an⋅dry
/ˈpɒliˌændri, ˌpɒliˈæn-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pol-ee-an-dree, pol-ee-an-] Show IPA
–noun
1. the practice or condition of having more than one husband at one time. Compare monandry (def. 1).
2. (among female animals) the habit or system of having two or more mates, either simultaneously or successively.
3. Botany. the state of being polyandrous.
Origin:
1770–80; < Gk polyandría. See poly-, -andry
-
Nevertheless, "Polygamy..." (http://www.timewastersguide.com/forum/index.php?topic=6651.msg145909#msg145909) is not "...the term for the criminal act of marrying more than one spouse." (http://www.timewastersguide.com/forum/index.php?topic=6651.msg145909#msg145909)
And has been used correctly by everyone here, except you.
In an effort to re-rail the train I tried to tease apart your earlier post. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that:
- A: Arguments that marriages were, in ancient times, only state sanctioned are wrong because there was always a very close connection between state and religion, even a lack of distinction between the two, therefore marriages were religious in nature even then?
- B: That since a Gay man has always been free to marry any female who would have him, his rights to a state-sanctioned "marriage" and the legal considerations granted to citizens of that class have never been abridged?
-
Can we not argue over definitons now?
-
Skar I wasn't limiting myself to homosexual men, I was including homosexual women as well. And that's the standard that heterosexuals are stuck with (who will have us). :P But yes you've summarized my position without the proofs I alluded to, with one notable error.
Classes are not protected under American law and constitution. Individuals are protected against discrimination on the basis of membership in a class. So I'm not maintaining(or even contemplating) whether there is discrimination against a class, only that 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.
-
On the gay thing–we had to take this survey at school today, and they asked us for our sexual preference (gay, transgender, bisexual, don't know, heterosexual, etc.) and a lot of people didn't know which one meant 'straight.' Most people thought it was heterosexual so they asked…and the way they asked is something that I HATE HATE HATE with a passion I HATE PEOPLE WHEN THEY DO THIS they said ' "Is 'heterosexual' the normal one?" '
Anyways. On topic. Polygamy would get annoying. Who do you sleep with? Do all of you share a room? How would your kids feel? Who do you have sex with? (I think we talked about this in another thread a bit (on one of our sidetracked rants :P ).)
-
Yeah it's ironic that the Jewish patriarchs, Avraham, Itzak and Yaakov were each polygynous -- but it was a source of deep sorrow and family strife in each case. The polygyny of David and Solomon caused succession wars. In general the message on the Bible is that it is a seriously bad idea most of the time, although never forbidden.
-
Peeps did…a lot of stuff back then. 8)
-
The LDS position (via the Book of Mormon) is that it's forbidden by default but may be dispensationally permitted when God wants a more rapid population increase, which was indeed the case with the patriarchs. And that David and Solomon got in trouble when they went after too many and in ways not approved by God—David when he went after someone else's wife and Solomon when he married outside the faith.
-
This may be a dumb question, but…does anyone know how they were supposed to know what God permitted and when?? ???
-
Actually, Renoard, resource polygyny was typical among the Jews, and was a normal, Jewish, institution. Christianity became so dominantly monogamous only through Roman influence—the Romans were extreme monogamists, and as many important early Christian theologians were Roman (and, indeed, it was not long before the Church was centered in Rome), certain Roman mores entered into Christianity and became Christian mores. Among these is strict adherence to monogamy.
I would recommend you read prof. Dixon's The Roman Family for more about the Roman institution of marriage, Renoard. Smith's Dictionary (available online) is also a good resource. Your argument that it was primarily religious in nature is belied by the fact that a) Confarreatio marriages increasingly diminished in Rome, b) other Roman marriages involved no religious officiator, and c) it was considered a matter of civic duty (pietas) to marry and have children. To argue that civic duty was identical to religion in Rome is essentially to argue that there was no such thing in Rome as "the state" as opposed to "the religion", which seems to me to be ludicrous.
As for early Medieval marriages, it is quite clear that, in most cases, there was certainly no religious officiator, and usually little of explicit religious practice in Medieval marriages, until the Church stepped in (primarily for bureaucratic/legal reasons: too often a man would marry a woman with no witnesses, and then later deny the marriage after he had deflowered her. There were few legal officers that cared if this happened among the peasantfolk, so the Church got involved). When there was a ceremony, it was quite clearly a social/cultural thing, much more than religious, and the massive differences between the ceremonies of Christian nobles (the rich were always much more likely to have a ceremony) throughout Europe underscores this. For further reading, I can recommend Herlihy's Medieval Households and Gottlieb's The Family in Western Europe.
-
This may be a dumb question, but…does anyone know how they were supposed to know what God permitted and when?? ???
You need God talking to a prophet and saying the prohibition is waived in order for it to be waived. Then for it to be un-waived again he needs to talk to another prophet (or theoretically the same one). It's only done by dispensation—individuals can't receive their own revelation saying it's OK for them personally unless it's already been allowed by the dispensation.
-
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.
-
The same prohibitions follow against pedophiles, polyamorists, and bestialists, Skar. Are they limited in ways that normal heterosexuals are not? Yes they are. Do you have a problem with this? Does this make the fact that they're limited unconstitutional, or somehow a violation of their rights?
And I'd like to reiterate my point that marriage, historically, was not a romantic institution (though certainly romance in marriage was encouraged). So this concept of "rights" relating to love and marriage is frankly, (in my opinion) quite silly, and has nothing to do with why marriage started up in the first place.
Frankly, I'd be fine if we took marriage out of the government's hands entirely. But you'd still have to make sure you had appropriate inheritance and guardianship laws (which could certainly be done without having the government regulate marriage, but would require some extra effort).
-
A good point Jade Knight, but I'd have to disagree on the applicability of the examples you provided. The differences lie in the details:
Pedophiles: Diddling little kids is not the same as two consenting adults engaging in relations. A pedophile and a 12 year old can declaim all they want about how they love each other. Doesn't change the fact that one of them is a kid and therefore not legally able to make that call. Unless your claiming that one partner in all homosexual relationships is always not legally capable of giving consent, or that 12 year olds ought to be able to legally give consent, this is apples and oranges.
Polyamorists: Last I looked it's not illegal to engage in this behavior. And when it comes to legally recognized relationships this would have to fall under chain marriages, polygamy (as the word is understood today) and/or polyandry. All of which, as we've already noticed, come onto the table once you start expanding the possible permutations of legal marriage beyond the traditional one male to one female, it is something that needs to be considered but is by no means an automatic deal-breaker.
Bestialists: Again, diddling animals is not the same as two sentient beings engaging in relations. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating the practice of helping the sheep over the fence, it's just apples and oranges and not really applicable as a counter-example.
And I'd like to reiterate ... started up in the first place.
You'll get no argument from me on this front. There are sound secular reasons for a state to encourage marriage as an institution. Inheritance, child-rearing, and general good order and discipline are a few among many. Note that all of these would result from same-sex marriages as well as hetero marriages so from a state's point of view, the more people engaged in stable married relationships the better, sexual orientation be darned.
Forthermore, why marriage started up in the first place has little or nothing to do with why people engage in it now and is thus irrelevant to answering the question today.
Frankly, I'd be fine ... would require some extra effort).
There's no need to take it out of the state's hands and go to that extra effort. We just need to quit conflating the spiritual with the secular implications of the word and ceremony.
-
I really like your points Skar.
(I've been lurking this thread and not saying much recently, but I strongly agree with many of the points he has made.)
-
I'd rather not get into an argument on the examples you provided here. I will simply say that 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.
Forthermore, why marriage started up in the first place has little or nothing to do with why people engage in it now and is thus irrelevant to answering the question today.
I must disagree with this completely. Simply because you are ignorant of the function of an institution does not mean the essence of that institution has changed. I certainly think people don't pay attention to the "historical function" when trying to get married, but marriage is a) codified in our society because of those historical reasons, b) carries the social functions and implications it currently does because of those historical reasons. Failing to understand the history of marriage in trying to determine its function is, indeed, trying to "redefine" something without understanding why the current "definition" exists in the first place—in other words, it's a totally arbitrary, and somewhat ignorant, process.
Your argument that homosexual union carries all the same benefits is probably your best argument, but as homosexual couples cannot biologically have children together (except in the case of transexuals), I don't think you've got it entirely accurate—a clear example of this was when a Swedish court forced a man to pay child support to a woman who had his child via donated sperm. She was in a homosexual marriage, and wanted the child to raise with her partner. The message of this case was clear: Biological obligation trumps marriage, sexual orientation, or intent.
-
Skar, I don't think that most people right when they get married have a passionate, world-shaking love—or if they think they do, they're probably blinded by it and due for a reality check days, months, or years down the road. Mature, lasting love is something that can only develop over time through mutual respect—and that is something that can certainly happen between a lesbian and a man.
Probably a lot of people nowadays get married because they believe they have a passionate, world-shaking love, but they're probably getting married for the wrong reasons. Sexual attraction is only a part of the sum total reasons for marriage.
[EDIT: Anyway, passionate love has never been part of the legal requirements of marriage. Getting someone of the opposite sex to agree to marry you is the only requirement (with restrictions on close relatives, minors, and people who are already 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.]
-
Isn't that the truth, Ookla. And divorce statistics attest to it.
I don't know if we have statistics for homosexual marriages, but there are statistics on homosexual relationships, and, statistically, homosexuals go through more partners than their heterosexual counterparts. If that carries into marriage (which it may or may not for a number of different reasons), we could expect divorce rates to be higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals.
[Oh yeah, add Incest to the list of situations where people can have "passionate love" but where law currently forbids them from marrying.]
-
We need to stop treating the married and single differently legally. If it was no longer beneficial financially and otherwise to marry there wouldn't be a need for all this argument, it would be a union due to mores only, but then again what stupid thing would we fight over next?
-
"there are statistics on homosexual relationships, and, statistically, homosexuals go through more partners than their heterosexual counterparts."
And how many of these homosexuals are allowed to get married? Marriage is the main reason for monogamy in the first place. If gay men and women were allowed to get married, there would be more monogamy among the gay community, and, due to that, less STDs in the gay community.
-
They use to have leper communities so i say we re-institute that principle with STD's!!!
(and yes this is a joke...i think..) :P
-
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?
-
I'm pretty sure I've already responded to a lot of these arguments in the previous threads and I'm not really inclined to get into them again.
My point was that the mature considerate love happens long after marriage, not before marriage. The desire for it is a reason for marriage, but it is something that can happen between a homosexual individual and a heterosexual individual. And it's still only a reason, not the reason. There is no the reason. I've talked about the other reasons in the other threads.
But also you said you can replace the terms in your original post. Let's do that:
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 mature, considerate love?
And I'll give my answer:Since she's homosexual, and men are therefore not excluded from the mature considerate love equation, I'd have to say that she does have that ability.
My point being that a lesbian can marry a man and develop a mature considerate love with him.
Anyway, on the "separate but equal" question: Domestic partnerships can be entered into by homosexual or heterosexual couples. Marriage (opposite-sex marriage) can be entered into by homosexual or heterosexual individuals. I don't see a legal problem.
As I mentioned in the other threads, my main issue is that marriage and homosexual marriage are not equivalent and should not be taught by society as equivalently desired statuses. I think that sexual desire is complicated, and the realization of sexual desire as an adolescent is complicated. I believe that the desire to pursue one avenue of sexual desire over another is something that personal decisions can be made upon, and if society treats them as equivalent, some people who might have gone one way will instead go the other way, and this is to the detriment of society as a whole.
-
My point being that a lesbian can marry a man and develop a mature considerate love with him.
A lesbian woman would not choose to marry a man in the hopes of developing a mature considerate love with him, but you're decreeing that she must if she wishes to marry.
Perhaps we should extend this philosophy to other situations? Let's imagine a law that decrees that any female wishing to marry must choose a man who is at least 20 years older than herself. Arbitrary, but let us postulate that it's simply how it's always been done and most people are of the opinion that it's better that way.
It is certainly possible for a 20 year old woman to develop a mature considerate love for a 40 year old man, therefore, by your argument, the law is just. Yet it's obviously not when the actors are changed.
Domestic partnerships can be entered into by homosexual or heterosexual couples. Marriage (opposite-sex marriage) can be entered into by homosexual or heterosexual individuals. I don't see a legal problem.
Meh. If the domestic partnership is as convenient and legally identical to legal marriage then yeah, there's no "separate but equal" problem. But it does bring us back to my original question, which is why so many homosexual citizens of this great nation have a problem with the idea of civil unions as opposed to (but theoretically legally identical too) marriages.
As I mentioned in the other threads, my main issue ... detriment of society as a whole.
Honestly, I'm with you on this. But all the arguments I can come up with to that end are rooted in my religious beliefs. And a particular set of religious beliefs should not dictate the law that applies to everyone. Which is one of the reasons I think that religions should not be in the business of handing out legal status to couples.
-
@Kaz In fact there are still leper colonies. At least one in the US. People are still not very comfortable dealing with the disfigurement, even if the infection is cured.
-
I'm generally finding myself agreeing with Ookla.
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.
I agree, and this is not what I'm arguing. What I am arguing in essence is that institution of marriage, if still understood by its traditional function, serves a useful function as a regulated, social entity. 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?
A lesbian woman would not choose to marry a man in the hopes of developing a mature considerate love with him, but you're decreeing that she must if she wishes to marry.
And think about this, Skar: What function does marriage serve a woman who will bear no children? It's simply a matter of words and titles, and holds no meaning. Why are "progressive" homosexuals clinging to an empty, outdated institution?
Perhaps we should extend this philosophy to other situations? Let's imagine a law that decrees that any female wishing to marry must choose a man who is at least 20 years older than herself. Arbitrary, but let us postulate that it's simply how it's always been done and most people are of the opinion that it's better that way.
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).
But it does bring us back to my original question, which is why so many homosexual citizens of this great nation have a problem with the idea of civil unions as opposed to (but theoretically legally identical too) marriages.
And that's exactly what I'm asking. 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.
-
a study of the institution of marriage: well, if you really want to do that. we can sum it up rather succinctly. Only un until the 20th century women were considered property of their husbands and were routinely "sold" into marriages by their father. Even today, this has only changed in the "civilized" world.
If you are to define marriage as a means to propogation of the species, then any couple who is married, should the union fail to produce a child, should have their marriage annulled. (there were many laws throughout history which allowed the man to annull the marriage in the case of a woman not producing him a child... and in some countries he could just kill her).
The institution of marriage, as it were, has been co-opted by religion and now only serves 2 real functions: the religious and the legal. Many people even have 2 seperate ceremonies as such. My brother recently did this: for legal purposes, he married his wife before a Justice of the Peace last year. Next month he is having the religious ceremony sans the legal paperwork.
Seperate the functions and more people would be happier. Allow a church to "marry" or not, whoever they wish. But it has no legal standing. The couple, married by a church or not, if they choose, can apply for a legal joining (call it civil union, whatever you want) which would provide legal protection for each party. That is the ony fair way to do it for all.
-
You've taken the legal stance that existed in a few isolated jurisdictions and never in the US and painted all institutionalized marriage as if it resembles the minority instances. And I'm sure you are referring to dowry as the "sale" of brides. In many countries and ethnic groups the father of the bride had to "pay" a man to take his daughter. So that interpretation holds no credibility. There is an argument that the marriage vows entail selling oneself to one spouse but that is a different issue.
This is a classic use of fallacy. The emotionally charged and factually deficient assault followed by a solution that does not logically follow from the argument even if the indictment had been true.
Rather than separating the functions it makes more sense to eliminate government involvement, then everyone gets the benefit of the legislation.
-
a study of the institution of marriage: well, if you really want to do that. we can sum it up rather succinctly. Only un until the 20th century women were considered property of their husbands and were routinely "sold" into marriages by their father. Even today, this has only changed in the "civilized" world.
This is absolutely incorrect, and even a cursory examination of the history of the family in Europe (let alone elsewhere) would make this obvious. Women did not begin to lose most of the rights they had known through much of European history until the Late Medieval Period (and this loss of status and rights seems to have indirectly been the result of primogeniture in the context of Medieval society...) 11th century Norse women, for example, generally had significantly greater freedom and power than did American women in 1920. Popular culture, I'm afraid, is a very poor History teacher. You're better off going to academic or primary sources.
I will say that there was one European group that treated women extraordinarily poor—the ancient Greeks, and it was particularly wealthy women which had the fewest freedoms (this is actually true throughout history—poor women generally enjoyed more social and economic freedom, and married later, than their noble counterparts).
Your conclusions regarding what should have to happen in a marriage contains a great deal of specious reasoning. Wonderful rhetoric, but it seems quite empty when you look at it pragmatically.
The institution of marriage, as it were, has been co-opted by religion and now only serves 2 real functions: the religious and the legal.
You've ignored the social function, of course. And, frankly, there's a thin line between the religious and the social, in some circumstances.
I'm going to be getting married this summer, and I plan on having 3 separate ceremonies, essentially. One religious & legal, and two social.
Despite my disagreement on most of your conclusions and statements concerning history, I do not oppose at all separating the functions of marriage. Make it so that legal unions involves no ceremony whatsoever: simply a matter of filling out paperwork, based on the pragmatic needs and effects of legal unions. Then let religions have their ceremonies, and everyone do whatever they want socially. Voilà, everyone's happy.
[Edit: Though I certainly wouldn't mind getting government out of it entirely, per Renoard.]
-
My point being that a lesbian can marry a man and develop a mature considerate love with him.
A lesbian woman would not choose to marry a man in the hopes of developing a mature considerate love with him
She might choose to, if she values the other reasons for getting married besides sexual attraction. It's certainly been done before, for centuries. And in today's world she probably has a much better chance of finding a sympathetic partner to be honest with rather than hiding her homosexual feelings for decades.
(Not that the LDS church encourages homosexuals to go ahead and get married anyway, mostly because it's a lot to ask of the other person. But it does happen.)
I know Orson Scott Card is widely ridiculed for his stance against homosexuality, but I (admittedly as a heterosexual LDS) think he did a very good job treating a homosexual character fairly in his Homecoming series. One of the male characters and a female character choose to get married for non-sexual reasons, and for the good of the (very small) society they're living in, even though both of them are quite aware he's homosexual. Their relationship does eventually develop into a mature, considerate love. No, he does not, in the rest of his life, ever stop feeling homosexual attractions. And maybe he doesn't ever love his wife as a woman—but he loves and respects her as a person and wants to make her happy.
Anyway, Elton John said that homosexuals should be happy with civil unions—when they have the same rights as marriage—and not get hung up on the word marriage. Gene Robinson (the gay Episcopal bishop) just said this past week or so that the Episcopal church should get out of the business of performing legal marriages and should just perform religious ones. Those examples say nothing about your questions but they do demonstrate there are varying opinions about the issue within the homosexual community.
-
I think having marriage be a social and religious institution only and letting civil unions represent the legal contract is the best way to make the most people happy in such a diverse society. Legal civil unions could also be used in other non-traditional family situations to share property, economic status, and other legal rights. For instance, a grandmother and a mother in a family could have a civil union to share their finances. I think that, generally, people should have to live in the same household to have a civil union, with some exceptions for military and such.
However, one implication of this is that civil unions wouldn't protect the marriage right of sexual exclusiveness. Not that it's usually enforced anyway. Too awkward.
One problem with having marriage be defined and recognized by the government is that religious leaders act as both legal and religious authorities when they marry someone. Therefore, they have to recognize any marriage that the government recognizes. That violates the fundamental religious rights of the church being forced to recognize a certain type of marriage.
So, I think an alternate to the government only recognizing civil unions is for it to recognize any type of marriage, but for the law to explicitly state that no private organization or church will be forced to recognize any type of marriage inconsistent with its values. The main disadvantage of that policy would be that, realistically, it would make sense for a church to refuse membership to someone because of being in a certain type of relationship, but it wouldn't make sense for a company to refuse employment for the same reasons. Hence why I prefer civil unions.
But if the government only recognizes civil unions, as a legal contract and a matter of paperwork, then there's still an interesting question. Should civil unions be limited to two people, or should they be allowed to be larger? This goes back to the polygamy/poly-whatever question. (Frankly, all the different definitions confuse me.)
-
again get the government out of the business of authorizing or denying unions. Not their place and purview.
-
That would only work if there were no legal ramifications for marriage and family relationships. But since married people share their property and finances, there has to be some sort of legal contract recognizing that union and what happens if the union is dissolved. Also, realistically, the institution of marriage is thoroughly ingrained into current legal systems. It would be very difficult to remove any and all recognition of marriage relationships in law, including tax law. I think it would be much more realistic to simply replace government recognition of marriage with government recognition of civil unions.
-
Eliminating government marriage laws and civil unions entirely would allow there to be STRONGER contractual unions. the Government activity in marriage and divorce makes it easier to get out of a marital obligation, such as exclusivity, than it is to break a credit card agreement. Moving marriage into the realm of privately drafted partnership agreements would make marriage commitments legally more binding.
-
*claps* man i acctually am going to side with Reonard i said something similar earlier in the thread..
-
Eliminating government marriage laws and civil unions entirely would allow there to be STRONGER contractual unions. the Government activity in marriage and divorce makes it easier to get out of a marital obligation, such as exclusivity, than it is to break a credit card agreement. Moving marriage into the realm of privately drafted partnership agreements would make marriage commitments legally more binding.
What? Anything that is 'legally binding' is only binding because the government makes it so. Who do you think forces the two parties to abide by the contract? You could certainly craft a partnership agreement/contract that is stronger than the current marriage contracts but that is in no way shape or form eliminating the government from the equation, at best it's just calling it by another name.
And I don't know how it is in your church but for mormons it is already far more difficult to break the religious marriage than it is the legal one.
-
What I was getting at is that a marriage is a partnership agreement. But government regulation that set marriage apart as a separate class of agreement, robs marriage of having at least as much strength as a verbal contract to buy a neighbor's lawnmower. It the special marriage statutes, making marriage a special case that are the heart of the matter. Without those lot's of gropes would be over.
-
However, one implication of this is that civil unions wouldn't protect the marriage right of sexual exclusiveness. Not that it's usually enforced anyway. Too awkward.
Actually, US courts have consistently struck down adultery laws. So this is effectively a moot point now.
I do think Eleaneth makes some good points, and I do think it would be difficult to extricate government from marriage functions entirely. At the same time, I like Renoard's arguments that such should be done.
Privately drafted partnership agreements would a) be more legally binding, b) be more significant, c) would be customized to the needs of the couple, and would be less cookie-cutter, d) would be closer to historical marriage contracts, and e) allow people to marry whoever and in whatever way they want, but the government has nothing to do with it any more than it has with any other business-style contract.
-
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?
-
JK: but the government has nothing to do with it any more than it has with any other business-style contract.
This doesn't make sense. How is the government less involved in a business contract than in a marriage contract? You're aware that the enforcement of said contract is entirely up to the government right? All the laws that bind the participants are created and enforced by the government. Without the government, no contract has any force whatsoever beyond the personal integrity of the people involved.
I personally think that the government should recognize partnership agreements and accomodate that agreement when it comes to things like inheritance and guardianship and taxes. But in order for everyone to be equal under the law the government can't place restrictions on who it allows to enter into those agreements, any more than it can place restrictions on who can enter into a verbal agreement to buy their neighbor's lawnmower. It's the nature of the rule-of-law as opposed to the rule of one group's moral opinion.
-
JK: but the government has nothing to do with it any more than it has with any other business-style contract.
This doesn't make sense. How is the government less involved in a business contract than in a marriage contract? You're aware that the enforcement of said contract is entirely up to the government right? All the laws that bind the participants are created and enforced by the government. Without the government, no contract has any force whatsoever beyond the personal integrity of the people involved.
I personally think that the government should recognize partnership agreements and accomodate that agreement when it comes to things like inheritance and guardianship and taxes. But in order for everyone to be equal under the law the government can't place restrictions on who it allows to enter into those agreements, any more than it can place restrictions on who can enter into a verbal agreement to buy their neighbor's lawnmower. It's the nature of the rule-of-law as opposed to the rule of one group's moral opinion.
from what i can tell, that's what they're saying.
They're saying that government shouldn't regulate marriage, instead it should be based on private contracts that can set whatever parameters both parties agree too. The "Less government" involvement from their statements comes from the fact that the government cant tell you what you can and can't do in a private contract, as long as both parties sign it
-
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
All of these rights are available through non-marriage arrangements (well, the last one depends on what state you're in).
I think it's important for both sides of the argument not to cloud the issue with extraneousness.
-
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?
This would be equal, yes, but what would be the function of it? How would such an institution serve national interests, in specifically discouraging couples which are able to bear children, and encouraging only couples which are not?
If you live in China, perhaps this might make some sense, if you think that population reduction is a national imperative. However, if heterosexual couples were entirely prevented from having children, such a population collapse would be catestrophic economically.
Again, Skar, the question you keep ignoring in your hypothetical examples: What is the function?
[And, for the record, I do not feel that the institution of marriage, in its original form, and with its original purposes, is outdated. I do, however, feel that a lot of the current ritual, pomp, circumstance, and sentimentality which surrounds modern marriages is outdated, and I reject these things (insofar as my fiancée will let me). As some mild examples: There will be no garter toss at my wedding/reception, and there will be no line.]
Realize, Skar, that tax differentials are arbitrary, and the only reason I can see a government for taxing married and non-married couples differently I can think of which might at all be justifiable is to encourage them to produce children. This is not applicable to homosexual couples. Insurance companies insure families as a unit primarily to allow single-income families to still have insurance on all members. The reason single-income families are not discouraged is because many believe that it's important to have one parent home to bear and raise children. Once again, this is a non-issue for homosexual couples. Hospital visitation is entirely arbitrary, and hospitals could change their rules in a heartbeat, if they so desired. And inheritance can be handled by a will just as easily as by a marriage contract.
So, I ask you again: What function would it serve?
-
I have to agree with everything Jade says there. Also, I have heard it reported that the hospital visitation thing is mostly bunk and that no hospital surveyed actually has any such rules—which, if do they exist anywhere, can be overcome by a notarized power of attorney anyway.
One thing people bring up is that if marriage is only for having children, shouldn't people who can't have children be barred from getting married? Someone else said that any couple that isn't pregnant within a year of marriage should be automatically divorced, or something like that. There are any number of heterosexual couples that don't have children at home; why should they continue receiving a tax break? Also, there is an additional tax break for each individual child, so why should there be one for a married couple if the only reason is to promote having children, when the one for the child does so more directly?
Again, I agree with Jade, but these are the questions that are asked.
-
Well, those are great questions. Our tax code is nonsensical on a number of levels, but that's another issue, I think.
And realize that "tax breaks" are relative. In a household with two serious income earners, being married can actually increase their tax liability, instead of reducing it.
-
Isn't that why there's the "married—filing separately" option? Though I hear there are couples that get divorced every year for tax reasons.
-
My whole stance on same sex marriage is this:
Churches shouldn't be forced to perform same-sex marriages if it goes against their religion.
However, if a church does support same-sex marriages, shouldn't that church have the right to marry them?
I honestly don't understand some of the more wacko arguments coming from the anti same-sex marriage side. Seriously, the people who believe that all the homosexuals are plotting to take over the world and indoctrinate their children into a society where the "gays" rule are just plain stupid. All they want to do is get married. Don't get me wrong, there are wackos on the other side of the argument too. I personally cannot stand the people who demand that all churches be required to marry them.
This is coming from someone who isn't really religious to begin with. I just firmly believe that there should be nothing stopping two consenting adults from getting married, regardless of gender.
As for the whole "second wife" thing.... yeah probably not. ;)
-
"Married—filing seperately" still frequently gives people a higher tax burden than two single individuals filing separately, Ookla, though it can (depending on your situation) be better than filing jointly.
Kefka: Out of curiosity, have you read my posts over the last several pages?
-
Kefka: Out of curiosity, have you read my posts over the last several pages?
I read most of the thread before posting. My comments weren't in response to anything anyone had previously posted, just my own thoughts. I try not to get too tangled up in these debates, as both sides are usually pretty stalwart in their defenses. :)
-
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
All of these rights are available through non-marriage arrangements (well, the last one depends on what state you're in).
I think it's important for both sides of the argument not to cloud the issue with extraneousness.
But the courts routinely override these "arrangements" in favor of blood family members. Something that almost never happens with married partners. It is most definately, unequivocally, not good enough. Marriage is the only true protection life partners can give each other. Everything else is just a shadow.
-
But the courts routinely override these "arrangements" in favor of blood family members.
Mind providing some examples?
-
I have read hundreds of articles where the courts (mostly in more conservative areas) refuse to acknowledge these documents when presented with blood relatives who object to them. I have even read an article where an adopted person was in a coma in an ICU and the birth-mother, via the courts, had the adoptive parents banished.
-
But the courts routinely override these "arrangements" in favor of blood family members.
Mind providing some examples?
I don't know about examples of that specifically, but i do know that same-sex civil unions aren't recognized federally, and due to the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, states are not required to recognize them either.
-
But the courts routinely override these "arrangements" in favor of blood family members.
Mind providing some examples?
I don't know about examples of that specifically, but i do know that same-sex civil unions aren't recognized federally, and due to the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, states are not required to recognize them either.
That has nothing to do with it; you're still working within the context of marriage.
I have read hundreds of articles where the courts (mostly in more conservative areas) refuse to acknowledge these documents when presented with blood relatives who object to them. I have even read an article where an adopted person was in a coma in an ICU and the birth-mother, via the courts, had the adoptive parents banished.
Marriages are not blood relationships: adoptive relationships are similar to marriages. It doesn't seem like there's much of a difference between marriage and non-marriage, according to your examples.
-
but marriage OVERRIDE blood relationships. A mother cannot keep a spouse from visiting her child in the ICU, but a spouse can keep a mother out, as it should be. But not in the case of "filed paperwork" or even civil marriage (under the current rules). A mother CAN prohibit a partner from visiting an ICU or other "spousal" priviledges.
For example: if my wife was in a coma, brain dead if you will, her mother cannot stop me from visiting, or even pulling the plug. But in a homosexual relationship, the mother can do both, whether there is a civil marriage, opartnership agreement or whatnot. Plus, the gay spouse cannot collect pensions and social security benefits, like I could should my wife pass away before me. and that is just wrong.
-
Social security and all of that is designed to enable single-income families to still be able to raise children and be okay. As I've pointed out before, the entire purpose behind this is pointless with homosexual families, which have no reason to not have two incomes.
As for hospitalization issues, that's a totally arbitrary thing that hospitals do which they could change in a heartbeat if they wanted.
Additionally, if you had signed a contract with the individual explicitly assigning you those rights, and got it notarized by a lawyer, you could probably sue and win if you were in a sympathetic court (like the 9th curcuit court of appeals).
-
"if you were in a sypathetic court" - which means that they only have rights in a sympathetic court.
and this: "Social security and all of that is designed to enable single-income families to still be able to raise children and be okay. As I've pointed out before, the entire purpose behind this is pointless with homosexual families, which have no reason to not have two incomes."
This is untrue. Social Security is designed to get people out of the workforce to curb unemployment. When it was envisioned, we had unemployment of nearly 30% and older workers dying, literally, in the streets. If the whole point of things is "for the children" then immediately following the childrens rise to adulthood, the marriage should be null and void. Ditto to those who are barren or sterile and to those who decide not to have children. Marriage has nothing to do with children in this day and age. It may have, back in the 1800s, but not now, and not since the 50s or 60. And lets not forget the fact that, although they may be gay, they can sTILL have children. Many of the gay couples I know do have children, either through adoption or fertilization procedures, or from previous hetero relationship. Using "children" as an excuse to discriminate against a segment of a population is abhorrent.
-
"if you were in a sypathetic court" - which means that they only have rights in a sympathetic court.
This has always been true of the US Justice system, and it applies to all sides, in every conflict.
Mtlhddoc2: Encouraging people not to work by paying them does NOT curb unemployment. If anything, it's likely to increase it.
And there's a strong cry between "purpose" and "convenience". Yes, current benefits designed to help single-income families frequently have benefits that carry beyond their purpose. This is mostly because curbing these benefits is inconvenient AND there's a huge lobby of Americans who would lose out on these benefits if they were curbed. It's a political thing, sure, and perhaps unjustified, but I'm not encouraging we increase these benefits. I would certainly support scaling them back.
Marriage has nothing to do with children in this day and age.
You appear to have ignored a massive amount of legislation and ideological dogma that's been floating around. Sure, this may be your opinion, but to claim such an absolute seems obviously incorrect to anyone who bothers asking couples with children why they got married.
-
For the record, if it could solve issues rather than cause them and it were legal where I made my home, I would accept polygyny. But it isn't one of my fantasies and I think most men who have been in a serious heterosexual relationship would not find it appealing. Building a relationship with one woman is hard work. Two is work-a-holic.
I will say that my ex-wife brought up some sort of arrangement that went that direction, but I suspect it was her (then) repressed lesbianism rearing it head.
Yeah Yeah TMI but it is pertinent. :D
-
"Encouraging people not to work by paying them does NOT curb unemployment. If anything, it's likely to increase it."
Well, duh, of course it does, but that is not the point. That is the reason legislation was enacted, I did not say it was GOOD legislation. No more than welfare "helps people get on their feet" actually does. But that is a seperate discussion. Seems we have similar politicl views, at least economically.
-
What the government is doing in restricting marriage to heterosexual unions is taking a moral stance, not a pragmatic one. Murder, rape, theft, all these things are illegal because they are immoral, not because they are detrimental to societal harmony. It is the same with marriage.
Why, then, does the government have the power to determine my morality and how that morality will be enacted in law? Isn't that contrary to the stated aim of a seperation between church and state?
-
That is interesting especially considering that many of the founding fathers were Theist...
-
epist: murder rape etc are illegal, yes because they are immoral, but also because the do the opposite of what this country was founded on: Freedom. We have freedom in all things, or we should, with one glaring exception: when it affects someone else. the old saying "your right to free speech stops at my nose" or soemthing to that effect. Restricting immoral behavior between two consenting adults is restrictions on freedom, regardles of how you view it. Many straight couples engage in immoral behavior in their bedrooms, consentually. And most of the laws restricting these things have been eradicated.
Marriage has nothing to do with sex, or sexual orientation or moral/immoral behavior. What it is is legally and/or religious joining with another person to become one entity, whatever the purpose may be, it could be sex, or finances, healthcare, conveinience, joining of families, or eradications of lonelieness. People get married for many different reasons and we do not judge them for it, since they can do whatever they want....... Unless they are gay of course.
-
But of course your initial premise is wrong. Marriage is the only morally acceptable context for sex for anyone following any of the worlds major religions (e.g. Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Chinese Animism etc). Pure Buddhism is an anomaly because it would suggest that sex, even in marriage, is wrong because it feels good and leads one to enjoy life. ;P
Not that religion should dictate to government, but sexuality outside of marriage was once illegal in the US. This was because government is made of people and morality is always informed by religious beliefs. Murder is illegal because it's considered immoral by the faiths people follow.
-
Murder, Rape, etc., are also illegal in Iran, Mtlh. Does that mean that Iran was founded on freedom?
-
Jade: not in every case.
-
Murder, Rape, etc., are also illegal in Iran, Mtlh. Does that mean that Iran was founded on freedom?
Actually, I'm sure that at some point of their governmental switching of power over the centuries they may have been founded on some idea of "Freedom", however, chances are the idea was perverted beyond what *WE* would call freedom.
Though I'm no expert on their history, but I'm sure there have been plenty of people who overthrew the government at some point and time for "Freedom"
-
Darn it Reonard stop making points i agree with... :P
-
Jade: not in every case.
But you just said that "the reason" these things are illegal in our country is because it is founded on freedom, which implies:
A) That all countries which contain such laws were founded on freedom,
OR
B) That all countries founded on freedom will contain such laws.
However, ALL contries contain these laws, which means that, scientifically, there is a perfect absence of correlation between the two.
In other words, being founded on freedom has absolutely nothing to do with having laws against murder and rape.
...if you count conjugal rights (a married person's right to have sex with their spouse) as rape, then not all countries have laws against all rape... but then, that would include this country, as this country ("founded on freedom") upheld conjugal rights laws for centuries.
-
Jade you've made a very good point. However I think what mtlhddoc2 meant to say was that the reasoning behind the American legislators decision was influenced by a love of freedom. This still would fail the test you cite Jade, but at the same time the perspectives of the framers does influence the character of these specific statutes. These framers of the US Service Code, however, found their morality, invariably, from Biblical sources so we're right back where we started.
-
murder was illegal in most societies before the bible became rote.
-
murder was illegal in most societies before the bible became rote.
Indeed. In fact what is generally called "Judeo-Christian morality" seems to have been nigh-universal among pre-modern societies.
Renoard's point is simply (I believe) that the Bible was what our nation's founders were going off of in figuring out many of the nation's early laws and principles.
-
Why not...even though i don't believe in it's holiness the structure of it is pretty advanced...the prophets and disciple where far from dim.... :-\
-
Since we have discussed the morality of gay marriage and polygamy, moving on to incest is it the governments right to tell first cousins brothers and sisters that they can't wed? I'm not talking about pedophilia (all pedophiles need to spend more time in cell 300 with Bubba).
-
Inbreeding causes insanity in its offspring.
-
That's not strictly true. All it does is simply increases the likelihood that genetic oddities will manifest themselves—including genetic deficiencies, yes. This may, however, have the effect of actually culling the gene pool, ridding a group of some of their worse genes (as those which carry the genes are much more likely to die from them). Of course, if you don't want your own children to be more likely to suffer genetic deficiencies, you may want to avoid marriages that endogamic.
-
The best way to avoid genetic anomalies is to marry someone of a very different ethnicity. Kids are prettier and the wider gene pool suppresses a whole spectrum of strong recessives. ;P
-
The kids aren't necessarily prettier i know half black half white people with a grey skin pigment which i find hideous... now i know half black people with out it and they are hot!!! (that is a general rule) and my previous comment was should the government be able to stop it...and I've heard and read some of the detail jade was talking about you actually can kill of certain bad recessives by inbreeding something...the problem is you run the risk around a 10% chance that you will reinforce bad recessives
-
i honestly, once again, have to say that the government shouldn't be allowed to disallow inbreeding, as long as it's two consenting adults. And this comes with my usual disclaimer tag of "there's no way *I* would do it", but if others want to, that's their own business
-
Eerongal: Did you know that "cousin marriages" are only illegal in a few states? Most of them are down south as well. in most northern states, you can marry your first cousin. but not your ex-stepsister.
-
Eerongal: Did you know that "cousin marriages" are only illegal in a few states? Most of them are down south as well. in most northern states, you can marry your first cousin. but not your ex-stepsister.
actually, yes, i did. I know many states allow 1st cousin marriages, and ALL states allow 2nd cousin marriages.
I know, on a genetic level, 2nd cousins pose no problem; not sure about 1st cousins, though.
edit: Slightly relevant interesting story.
I know a guy who was dating a girl, and they found out (after going out for 5 or 6 years) that they shared the same great grandmother, making them second cousins. They continued dating, but they eventually broke up for unrelated reasons.
-
I woudlnt say "no problem" but less of a problem.
for inbreeding, one needs only to look at the monarchies of Europe to see how long term inbreeding can directly effect development. after a few generations, there was significant degredation of the lines. Hemophilia in Russia, mental disorders in Spain, among others. Most of those lines routinely married first or second cousins.
-
I woudlnt say "no problem" but less of a problem.
for inbreeding, one needs only to look at the monarchies of Europe to see how long term inbreeding can directly effect development. after a few generations, there was significant degredation of the lines. Hemophilia in Russia, mental disorders in Spain, among others. Most of those lines routinely married first or second cousins.
well, there's always risk of genetic mutation in any form of reproduction. Incest just causes...extra problems.
Interesting note: Supposedly, everyone in the world is at least 7th cousins from each other. Don't know how true this is, but it's what some people claim (and it honestly wouldn't surprise me)
-
Well, that's fairly easily proven false through genealogy. But I did read a quote just now that says "It is almost certain that we are all at least 27th cousins."
-
The chances of mutation are no higher in incest than in normal offspring... the only danger is bad recessives
Edit: actualy i take that back the psychological damage is possible because if you break up divorce ect. it's still your family
-
Well, that's fairly easily proven false through genealogy. But I did read a quote just now that says "It is almost certain that we are all at least 27th cousins."
That may be what I'm thinking of. may have just got the number wrong (i was shooting from memory)
Interesting read I came across while trying to verify/disprove my earlier statement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Edit:
The chances of mutation are no higher in incest than in normal offspring... the only danger is bad recessives
Edit: actualy i take that back the psychological damage is possible because if you break up divorce ect. it's still your family
Most "mutations" are the result of dominant recessive genes all ready existing within a germline. In fact, technically, every variation between all people is technically a "mutation", but we don't refer to the normal dominant traits as such, just the bad, undesirable ones.
-
A mutation as i understand it is when a cell reproduces incorrectly differing from the genetic code, and there are harmless mutations out there
-
A mutation as i understand it is when a cell reproduces incorrectly differing from the genetic code, and there are harmless mutations out there
actually, any differing of DNA from one generation to the next is a mutation. Evolution is a series of beneficial mutations. Everything that causes someone to turn out (genetically) different from someone else is a mutation, be it favorable, unfavorable, or purely cosmetic
Usually people think of mutation as the incorrect sequencing of DNA from reproduction, but this is only one *TYPE*.
All geneticly passed diseases are mutations, and if they don't always show up, are recessive.
Mental retardation can be a genetic mutation (though there are certainly other types).
However, your assessment is correct in and of less variation in the gene pool will cause recessive genes to be more common, as the dominant genes slowly get culled.
Basically, all variations in DNA were "Mutations" at some point, but many now are so commonplace we don't question it
-
I don't think most geneticists would accept your definition, Eerongal. Yes, all genetic variation was once mutations, but what was once a mutation is no longer a mutation once it has become an allele passed through one's genes.
-
Uh... I have a husband... but I think I want a wife too. Only one though, the bed would get crowded after that. ;D