Marriage Debate

[Meadmaker]

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.

Quite right. Anyone claiming that marriage is a religious institution would be sadly mistaken.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I don't know.



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

I have to admit that I expected you to sidestep my questions. Thank you for not doing so.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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 are all of them, why do you only ignore some of them? The ones agenst homosexuality are just as old, but for some reson people think that they have merit in determining moral behavior.

The bible in its entirety is at least 1700 years old, most older, so it is all irelevent then.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, among the uncivilized.
.

Good to know that christians have been uncivilized for most of their history.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

No I am quite sure it makes no specific historic statements. It is offers no more support that I would stateing that all marriage before say the 19th century was based on chattel bondage of the women involved. This is very true and is supportable, but then you can find cases where it is also not true

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.
[/qoute]

Homosexual necrophila can be viewed as natural. You are going to need to define natural in some fashion, because looking at the animal world we can find cases where all kinds of behavior that churchs concider devient to be practiced. So how do animals on their own commit unnatural acts?

Or are you one of those people who says that inspite of all the evidence from zoo keepers and naturalists in the wild, there are no gay penquins or other birds?

Using a more chemistry based definition of natural you can show that it is also irrelevnet and many of the world most toxic substances are all natural.

So would you care to define natural as you are using it? And provide some rational about how you include vs exclude behaviors from this definition of natural? Males owning many females is a common social stucture in the animal kingdom, and monogamy much less common. So why is only one natural?

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."
[/qoute]

Polygamy does not have to be based on that, I am sure that there are enough polyamourous individuals to make it clear. So while a majority of people might be most happy in serial monogamy(I belive this is the most common historic and modern sexual style) some are happy in other relationships. So this would fit into the opression of a minority here by the monogamy is the only moral behavior ideas.

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.

I thought you said that the bible was the best advice on marriage? Why are you so clearly ignoreing it and not repremanding your wife for behaving in so unbecomeing a manor for a woman? What does the bible recomened for the correction in such manors? I know that traditionaly in most cultures they would involve a good beating. So as a fan of tradition, why do you allow her to disrespect your masculine superiority so much, and not correct her?

The ability people have to proclaim the quality of the bible while ignoreing so much of it is really quite amazing.

 

[Meadmaker]

Gwyn,

The only case I can think of where the government specifies the sex of an individual for a role, other than marriage, is in the case of combat roles in the armed services. In times past, it specified a great deal more. In some nations, government still do specify a great deal more.

Let's not lose sight of the point. When I insisted that marriage was a civil contract, Upchurch asked why the government specified the sex of the people that could participate. Was he suggesting it was not a civil contract? It certainly is a civil contract, and the government certainly does specify the combination of genders necessary to have it recognized as a valid civil contract. Whether or not the government ought to do so is a separate issue.

 

[ceo_esq]

What planet do you come from?

The planet where I do this sort of thing for a living, remember? Not that I'm not interested in your opinions about the development of our system of laws.

Marriages were traditionally about exchanges of property and inheritance of that property by the sons of the father.
Marriage being about protecting children in a twentieth century convetion, not a traditionally religious one.

First of all, even very old patriarchal systems of family law - indeed, even systems where families were considered akin to chattels - were partly conceived with a view toward preserving the welfare of women and children. The late Allan Bloom described the scenario succinctly:

In family questions, inasmuch as men were understood to be so strongly motivated by property, an older wisdom tried to attach concern for the family to that motive: the man was allowed and encouraged to regard his family as his property, so he would care for the former as he would instinctively care for the latter. This was effective, although it obviously has disadvantages from the point of view of justice.

Concern for families has been a fairly consistent theme in matrimonial regimes throughout history and across many different cultures. Indeed, some of the earliest laws known to us are matrimonial laws ensuring support of widowed or divorced women, which are generally linked to children's interests. It would be a vast and possibly vain undertaking to explain to you all the ways in which this is true, but let's consider just one example.

Dower, as you may know, is the right at old common law of a wife to an indefeasible interest in a portion (usually one-third) of her husband's real property upon the dissolution of the marriage (usually by death). Noting how strikingly similar rules have evolved in different societies across time, Rick Geddes and Paul Zak have observed that:

The institutional analysis of household dissolution rules indicates that the Rule of One-Third provided incentives for both parents to contribute to their children's human capital. ... The analysis suggests that lawmakers throughout history intuitively understood that inputs from both parents are important to children's development, and they sought to establish rules encouraging those contributions. ... [The Rule of One-Third] was an important legal institution arising to solve a contracting problem between men and woman that ultimately facilitated vital investments in children's human capital.

- "The Rule of One-Third", 31 J. Legal Stud. 119 (2002).

Your suggestion that the idea of marriage as having children's interests at heart originated recently is, I can assure you, very wrong, at least from a legal perspective. As for whether it is "traditionally religious", there is certainly a nexus between that view and religious tradition, at least in the West - but as Meadmaker and others have admirably pointed out, there is nothing exclusively or distinctively religious about it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hmm, I just had a thought that struck me as a very different way to look at what features of marriage are universal. Look at small still tribal customs noted by anthropologists.

For example I remember hearing of one group where roughly the women and men each lived in seperate long houses and at a certain age boys move from one to the other.

The other is one where children and such belong to the womans family and are not really concidered and having a formal relationship with their father, the relationship with their mothers brothers being concidered more important.

So basicly what are the more unusual family structures that people have practiced. either of those is much more different from the "sterotypical traditional monogamy" in more fundamental ways than polygamy as that is mostly just more women and kids that men have control over.

 

[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 are all of them, why do you only ignore some of them?

Would you prefer I accept child stoning, and reject love thy neighbor as thyself?

Please; shouldn't it be obvious?

The ones agenst homosexuality are just as old, but for some reson people think that they have merit in determining moral behavior.

Please show where (anywhere in this thread) I have cited the Bible with regard to homosexuality.

The bible in its entirety is at least 1700 years old, most older, so it is all irelevent then.

You appear to be seven or eight years old, and you are making yourself irrelevant.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :

Yes, among the uncivilized.

Good to know that christians have been uncivilized for most of their history.

Yeah, clearly you find that "good to know."

Oh, and how little you are showing that you know.......................

 

[Huntster]

No I am quite sure it makes no specific historic statements. It is offers no more support that I would stateing that all marriage before say the 19th century was based on chattel bondage of the women involved. This is very true and is supportable....

Very true and supportable?

Than support it, Wise Man. Show me.

but then you can find cases where it is also not true

You'd better believe it.

The ability people have to proclaim the quality of the bible while ignoreing so much of it is really quite amazing.

Sort of similar to you making blanket statement like the above:

...all marriage before say the 19th century was based on chattel bondage of the women involved. This is very true and is supportable...

Then concluding with:

but then you can find cases where it is also not true

 

[Huntster]

Quite right. Anyone claiming that marriage is a religious institution would be sadly mistaken.

Anyone get the copyright date on this?:

So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken." That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body. The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.

Genesis 2:21-25

Genesis as a completed book makes no claims about its authorship; it is an article of Orthodox Jewish faith that the book was dictated, in its entirety, by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. For a number of reasons, this view is no longer accepted by many biblical scholars and liberal Protestants. Instead, they accept a theory whose roots are based on cultural evolution and philosophical naturalism which teaches that the text of Genesis as we see it today was redacted together around 440 BC from earlier sources, namely the Sumerians.

Source

Does anyone know which government entity legitimized and regulated that marriage?

Funny, it sure looks like a religious situation to me................

 

[ceo_esq]

The world isn't what it used to be, so I wouldn't force a young couple into a traditional arrangement, but today, it isn't even available.

Upchurch and ID have said that it could be arranged by pre-nuptial agreements. CEO-Esquire, if you are reading this, can you comment on whether or not they are correct? Are there limits on what can be in a prenuptial agreement?

Yes, there are limits, but as I can't find the posts you're referring to I'm not sure exactly what you're wondering whether a prenup can accomplish. You could not use a prenup to absolutely prevent your spouse from divorcing you, but in various ways you could make it more costly for him/her to do so (in fact, that's the effect - if not necessarily the intent - of a lot of pre-nups today).

 

[Meadmaker]

I was wondering if you could include clauses that change property distribution and/or rights to future income (such as alimony) in the event one partner committed an act which would have traditionally been a cause for an at fault divorce.

In other words, can you put in a clause that you get to keep all of the stuff if the other partner commits adultery?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Dave, I don’t think it will go far if you just use prenups, regardless of the legal possibilities (if that’s what you’re thinking). I think you need new law to set what you’re after up.

I’d say it’s a problem of:

1. ease; these will need far more time and in-depth thought without a template.

2. emotions; debating, just before your wedding, with your future wife about what happens if you cheat may likely end in a bunch of calls to your friends and family explaining why all those gifts must go back.

And 3. advertising; try to sell a prenup or a “covenant marriage” to your fiancé and I think the difference would be clear .

 

[ceo_esq]

I was wondering if you could include clauses that change property distribution and/or rights to future income (such as alimony) in the event one partner committed an act which would have traditionally been a cause for an at fault divorce.

In other words, can you put in a clause that you get to keep all of the stuff if the other partner commits adultery?

It used to be that no court would enforce prenuptual waivers of alimony. Now some states will, but even in those states, alimony clauses still get more court scrutiny than most other parts of the prenup.

A renunciation of rights to future income could not apply to child support.

Enforcement of a prenup that would effectively leave a spouse (even an adulterous one) without any resources is an iffy proposition, all in all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Very true and supportable?

Than support it, Wise Man. Show me.

You first. You started by quoteing blanket statements like that

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

Please provide evidence to support this. I was just showing that you can make all kinds of blanket statements.

It would also matter if I had ever accepted tradition as an valid point for anything. IF there are no arguements agenst it carrying on a tradition is fine, but traditions get altered all the time.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Anyone get the copyright date on this?:





Source

Does anyone know which government entity legitimized and regulated that marriage?

Funny, it sure looks like a religious situation to me................

Well that looks like a good endorcement of shaking up with women, but I don't see anything about marriage or monogomy or many other things that you seem to be interested in. Looks like an endorcement of sex to me.

 

[Meadmaker]

Dave, I don’t think it will go far if you just use prenups, regardless of the legal possibilities (if that’s what you’re thinking). I think you need new law to set what you’re after up.

I’d say it’s a problem of:

1. ease; these will need far more time and in-depth thought without a template.

2. emotions; debating, just before your wedding, with your future wife about what happens if you cheat may likely end in a bunch of calls to your friends and family explaining why all those gifts must go back.

And 3. advertising; try to sell a prenup or a “covenant marriage” to your fiancé and I think the difference would be clear .

I agree, completely. While I agree with your objections, some will not. (However, they won't voice their objections to you. You're gay, so they ignore what you have to say. ) I was wondering if, regardless of the emotional state, it would even be legally possible to create a prenuptial agreement that would achieve what I've said I want to achieve. Upchurch and ID have said that all contractual obligations should be spelled out in the prenuptial agreement. I'm trying to find out if that's even possible, without a change in law.

I wouldn't think it's a good idea, regardless, but that's a separate issue.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Very true and supportable?

Than support it, Wise Man. Show me.

You first....

Don't give me that "you first" crap.

I cited a link. You didn't.

You typed some crap with no link, then put your "very true and supportable" BS to it.

Show me. Show us.

Or stop typing.