Marriage Debate

[ImaginalDisc]

How about your very next post:



Are you married? How can you imagine and state that marriage has been all "about property, inheritance, and ensuring paternity" in the past? What kind of jaded view of history is that?

And you call me a liar?

Is your contention that "it was about property, inheritance, and ensuring paternity" a lie, or simply propaganda?

What is the difference between a lie and propaganda?

The legal function of marriage in the past had nothing to do with protecting children. Why are you incapable of basic reading comprehension?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I hit this line and had to stop reading:

I wonder what definition of "few" and "small groups" they are using.

eta: Actually, add "all", "authorities", and "agree" to that list, too.

Yeah. Well, when you base your beliefs on a mytholigical history, you get to say anything.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Source

Ok let me do a section by section analysis of this, but first it does nothing to answer the question I asked. It does not support the concept that historicaly marriage was primarily about children it states what it conciders a proper marriage. It also is very clear that everyone must fit its model and that having differnet people happy in different kinds of marriage is clearly impossible.

The experience of the race, particularly in its movement toward and its progress in civilization, has approved monogamy for the simple reason that monogamy is in harmony with the essential and immutable elements of human nature. Taking the word natural in its full sense, we may unhesitatingly affirm that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage. While promiscuity responds to certain elemental passions and temporarily satisfies certain superficial wants, it contradicts the parental instinct, the welfare of children and of the race, and the overpowering forces of jealousy and individual preference in both men and women. While polyandry satisfied in some measure the temporary and exceptional wants arising from scarcity of food or scarcity of women, it finds an insuperable barrier in male jealousy, in the male sense of proprietorship, and is directly opposed to the welfare of the wife, and fatal to the fecundity of the race. While polygamy has prevailed among so many peoples and over so long a period of history as to suggest that it is in some sense natural, and while it does seem to furnish a means of satisfying the stronger and more frequently recurring desires of the male, it conflicts with the numerical equality of the sexes, with the jealousy, sense of proprietorship, equality, dignity and general welfare of the wife, and with the best interests of the offspring.

Ok first it is makeing blanket statements not actualy looking at various customs and supporting itself. So it answers nothing about what I was asking.

It also does nothing to support that just because most historic examples of say polygamy have been based on ownership of women that this is somehow significant, most monogomus marriage also focused on the ownership of women. So monogomus marriage must also be immoral.

In all those regions in which polygamy has existed or still exists, the status of woman is extremely low; she is treated as man's property, not as his companion; her life is invariably one of great hardship, while her moral, spiritual, and intellectual qualities are almost utterly neglected. Even the male human being is in the highest sense of the phrase naturally monogamous. His moral, spiritual, and aesthetic faculties can obtain normal development only when his sexual relations are confined to one woman in the common life and enduring association provided by monogamy. The welfare of the children, and therefore, of the race, obviously demands that the offspring of each pair shall have the undivided attention and care of both their parents. When we speak of the naturalness of any social institution, we necessarily take as our standard, not nature in a superficial or one-sided sense, or in its savage state, or as exemplified in a few individuals or in a single generation, but nature adequately considered, in all its needs and powers, in all the member of the present and of future generations, and as it appears in those tendencies which lead toward its highest development. The verdict of experience and the voice of nature reinforce, consequently, the Christian teaching on the unity of marriage. Moreover, the progress of the race toward monogamy, as well as toward a purer monogamy, during the last two thousand years, owes more to the influence of Christianity than to all other forces combined. Christianity has not only abolished or diminished polyandry and polygamy among the savage and barbarous peoples which it has converted, but it has preserved Europe from the polygamous civilization of Mohammedanism, has kept before the eyes of the more enlightened peoples the ideal of an unadulterated monogamy, and has given to the world its highest conception of the equality that should exist between the two parties in the marriage relation. And its influence on behalf of monogamy has extended, and continues to extend, far beyond the confines of those countries that call themselves Christian.

It also does nothing to support that just because most historic examples of say polygamy have been based on ownership of women that this is somehow significant, most monogomus marriage also focused on the ownership of women. So monogomus marriage must also be immoral.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah. Well, when you base your beliefs on a mytholigical history, you get to say anything.

Also you don't actualy need to provide any evidence to make historic claims. Just blanket statements will work fine. We need to try more of this "Christian History" in our arguements.

 

[Meadmaker]

Oops, sorry. I got very distracted by other matters.

I wasn't saying that marriage is a form of religious oppression. I was saying that the legal recognition of some religions' marriages but not other religions' marriage was government oppression of those latter religions and a clear violation of the first amendment.

It's an interesting interpretation, but not one that has ever been supported by any court.

But at any rate, the United States doesn't recognize any religion's marriage. Marriage is a civil contract.

 

[Upchurch]

It's an interesting interpretation, but not one that has ever been supported by any court.

Yet.

But at any rate, the United States doesn't recognize any religion's marriage. Marriage is a civil contract.

Then why the gender descrimination? What other civil contract dictates the gender of those who may enter into it?

 

[Huntster]

The legal function of marriage in the past had nothing to do with protecting children. Why are you incapable of basic reading comprehension?

Perhaps for the same reasons others here suffer such.

Ponderingturtle is trying to get me to stone children, despite my repeated statements outlining the fact that the Biblical verses advocating such that he wants to showcase are thousands of years old.

 

[Huntster]

Ok let me do a section by section analysis of this, but first it does nothing to answer the question I asked. It does not support the concept that historicaly marriage was primarily about children it states what it conciders a proper marriage.

Gee. Ya' musta' missed it. I'll read it for you:

The experience of the race, particularly in its movement toward and its progress in civilization, has approved monogamy for the simple reason that monogamy is in harmony with the essential and immutable elements of human nature. Taking the word natural in its full sense, we may unhesitatingly affirm that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage. While promiscuity responds to certain elemental passions and temporarily satisfies certain superficial wants, it contradicts the parental instinct, the welfare of children and of the race, and the overpowering forces of jealousy and individual preference in both men and women.

The welfare of the children, and therefore, of the race, obviously demands that the offspring of each pair shall have the undivided attention and care of both their parents.

Inasmuch as the children of a divorced couple are deprived of their normal heritage, which is education and care by both father and mother in the same household, they almost always suffer grave and varied disadvantages

The fact the union is indissoluble and monogamous promotes in the highest degree the welfare of parents and children, and stimulates in the whole community the practice of those qualities of self-restraint and altruism which are essential to social well-being, physical, mental, and moral.

I understand how you may need it read to you. You also seem to fully miss the term and concept of "natural." Like in "nature." Like in "procreation" as a most basic and natural driving force behind behavior.

It also is very clear that everyone must fit its model and that having differnet people happy in different kinds of marriage is clearly impossible.

No, it does not. It is focused on the good for all, not the selfish interests of the few. Again, note the many references to "the race."

It also does nothing to support that just because most historic examples of say polygamy have been based on ownership of women that this is somehow significant, most monogomus marriage also focused on the ownership of women. So monogomus marriage must also be immoral.

Yes, among the uncivilized.

Are you one of them, too? Do you own your spouse?

I certainly don't. In fact, I'll openly admit that Mrs. Huntster owns me, and there's very little I could do even if I wanted to.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Perhaps for the same reasons others here suffer such.

Ponderingturtle is trying to get me to stone children, despite my repeated statements outlining the fact that the Biblical verses advocating such that he wants to showcase are thousands of years old.

So, how old do biblical verses have to be before we can disregard them? If we wait around long enough will homosexual behaviorl no longer be immoral?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Perhaps for the same reasons others here suffer such.

Ponderingturtle is trying to get me to stone children, despite my repeated statements outlining the fact that the Biblical verses advocating such that he wants to showcase are thousands of years old.

So, how old do biblical verses have to be before we can disregard them?

I don't know.

If we wait around long enough will homosexual behaviorl no longer be immoral?

Maybe. RCC doctrine regarding homosexuality and how homosexuals should be treated has clearly changed over the past several centuries.

 

[Earthborn]

I wonder what definition of "few" and "small groups" they are using.

eta: Actually, add "all", "authorities", and "agree" to that list, too.

Perhaps you should have asked yourself what definition of 'promiscuity' they used. The argument that is made is more or less correct if we consider the fact that they use a rather peculiar definition of 'promiscuity': "the condition in which all the men of a group maintain relations and live indiscriminately with all the women"

According to that definition, not even the most promiscuous species (for example: Bonobos) practice promiscuity, so it is fairly obvious that humans don't either.

 

[pgwenthold]

What do they have against the traditional understanding of marriage?

I have yet to figure out why you don't understand that arguments used against interracial marriage probably don't hold a lot of wait with people in the 21st century.

Yet, you continue to advance them.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

More to the point, marriage has historically mostly been between a man and his property...usually a woman. The marriage that advocates want to protect is a relatively recent cultural invention. For example, it has only provided real protections (out side of Dower rights) to women and children almost within living memory.

While for the most part, you are correct, Rome, during the late Republic and early Empire periods afforded many of the the same protections to both partners as in more recent history.

It is interesting that it was only in these two periods that same-sex marriage has been an issue. Not because persons of non-traditional sexuality did not form pair-bonds in any other time period, but because these were the times that the government recognized and protected the rights of married couples, and GLBT couples have the same need for those protections.

Under governments that do not protect the rights of both partners, especially the weaker spouse, there would no additional benefit in having the government recognize the relationship. So there simply wasn't any point in pressing the issue.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yet.


Then why the gender descrimination? What other civil contract dictates the gender of those who may enter into it?

Employment as a Hooter Girl.

Are you seriously suggesting that it isn't a civil contract? If so, you had best tell the people who wrote California law.

 

[Meadmaker]

Oops, sorry. I got very distracted by other matters.

I wasn't saying that marriage is a form of religious oppression. I was saying that the legal recognition of some religions' marriages but not other religions' marriage was government oppression of those latter religions and a clear violation of the first amendment.

You were going to walk me through my logic to show me why a Civil Union law would be unjust. Well, you know some of where I was going with that, but if you're still interested, feel free to keep going. I think as a consequence, you'll end up walking through your own logic, and that would be a worthwhile exercise. (At least as worthwhile as the rest of this banter, anyway.) We had gotten as far as noting that a civil union would be "actually different" from a marriage, but no mention had yet been made of justice, except to note that something was unjust if it deprived someone of a fundamental right.

Unless you are done, by asserting that somehow limiting the word "marriage" to opposite sex couples is an endorsement of religion. If that's all you've got, I don't buy it, but at least we know the argument, and others can judge.

Up for it? Your call.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Oops, sorry. I got very distracted by other matters.

I wasn't saying that marriage is a form of religious oppression. I was saying that the legal recognition of some religions' marriages but not other religions' marriage was government oppression of those latter religions and a clear violation of the first amendment.

Perhaps "oppression" is too strong a word at this point in your discussion with Meadmaster. (I'd allow you to reserve the right to re-instate it when and if you prove to him the basic unfairness in his "separate but equal" scheme.)

At this point, however, accepting (even if only provisionally, in order to step through his reasoning) that his belief that it is possible that the two institutions can be made equal, even if kept separate, I believe that "entanglement" would be a better word. Government entanglement with a religion is still a violation of the First Amendment, but does not need to automatically assume open hostility to other religious views, just denial or blind ignorance.

If you don't automatically assume a religion-based hostility in his position, it might be easier to help him see that the only reason for insisting on the existence of two separate institutions is to preserve the "sacredness" of the one over the other. And that that is because he was taught that the one relationship is considered "pure" and the other "tainted."

It then might become relatively easier to show there is entanglement in his scheme by showing that it ignores/denies the beliefs of such other religions as UU, UCC, MCC, Reform Judaism, etc

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Employment as a Hooter Girl.

But in that case the government is not denying the right to enter into the contract, it is a private employer. And there are laws that restrict the "right" of private employers to so discriminate. This is just an accommodation where the government feels it has a reason to decline to get involved. A lawsuit by a male applicant who was turned away would force the court to examine the validity of that reason.

(Yes, I know that your statement was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but consider that that is the only situation that even comes close to the kind of sexual discrimination exercised in marriage licensing.)

 

[Meadmaker]

A lawsuit by a male applicant who was turned away would force the court to examine the validity of that reason.

The lawsuit has been brought. Hooters won.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

I was not aware that a lawsuit had been brought. But it does not affect my statement, since I made no assumptions concerning the outcome of such a suit.

Neither does it change the fact that this situation is different from one in which the government legislates that Hooters and a male employment applicant could not enter into an agreement even if both were not only willing, but eager, which would be the comparable gender discrimination situation that Upchurch had asked about.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well here are some fun facts from the history of marriage for all those less than well informed Evangelical Christians claiming marriage is a sacred institution under God's law.

It's typical the anti-gay crowd thinks the world began in their lifetime and everything is as it always has been. It's predictable they haven't read much history in their tunnel visioned lives.