OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

[Starving_Poet]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

This keeps popping up, so I want to emphasize this again.

The Constitution does not grant rights. God grants rights. The Constitution just makes sure to protect them.

That's why there was a lot of Consternation about including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution because the founders feared that people would think those were their only rights.

 

[Thyiad1]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

So as an athiest non-American, I don't have any rights?

I think your arguement just hit a large snag.

 

[Thrandir]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

It almost seems like you want to make it a semantical issue, which is pretty pointless. The meaning of words changes frequently and none of this should be handled in a constitution. It is, after all, a constitution, not a dictionary. If I call the union between Bob and John marriage, what are you going to do? Sue me?

You bring up a good point. Like I said in the very first post of this thread, that's where things are unclear to me. I also said it seems clear that the issue is more than semantic; otherwise, this would be a petty squabble over who gets the word. In that case, I'd say 'who cares' and leave the word behind. But there's a rich history of concept and meaning behind that word, and it's difficult to detach it. That's more what I'm concerned about, and where (it seems to me) the opinion is most divided.

But some children left dad’s house and are living in new houses. Does dad has a say about where the painting is allowed in those houses? Better yet, does the children that remained at dad’s house have the right to stop the children that left from painting their walls as they see fit ?

[Christian PoV]
That definitely works inside the analogy. But in reality, the 'house' God built is the entire universe we live in. Our "space-time continuum". xD
God created the whole thing, he knows what's right and wrong throughout the whole thing. We can't leave the "house" without first dying, and even that wouldn't necessarily guarantee it. [My PoV] When we die, we choose whether we stay or leave, although that choice has much to do with how we've lived[/My PoV]

@Thyiad:
God would grant you the same 'rights' as anyone else whether you believe in him or not.
[/Christian PoV]

Although, 'rights' is a kind of weird way to put it. I think I'd disagree with Starving_Poet: 'rights' are a man-made concept, so it makes sense to me that they'd be granted by a man-made Constitution.
What God would be granting us is much more real - though much less clear - than any 'rights' a country or age decides upon.

 

[bassen]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

look around, who do you see?
is it them? is it us?
no...?
then... who is it?

remember that love is stronger than hate
hate is the son of fear
fear is something in your head
then clean your head
use it for something better, love


(those above are not OT but it's not my fault if you don't understand them hehe)

Edit: Why do I input these things? A honest answer is that I love to play

 

[stephan]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

You bring up a good point. Like I said in the very first post of this thread, that's where things are unclear to me. I also said it seems clear that the issue is more than semantic; otherwise, this would be a petty squabble over who gets the word. In that case, I'd say 'who cares' and leave the word behind. But there's a rich history of concept and meaning behind that word, and it's difficult to detach it.

But again, that rich history is not uniquely Christian and Christians certainly do not have a justifiable monopoly on the word and tradition of marriage. Furthermore, that tradition would only be relevant if they (the g ay people) want to marry in the church. You can't force your religious believes outside of it.

 

[Gabriel74]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

It almost seems like you want to make it a semantical issue, which is pretty pointless. The meaning of words changes frequently and none of this should be handled in a constitution. It is, after all, a constitution, not a dictionary. If I call the union between Bob and John marriage, what are you going to do? Sue me?

Here is where I think one of the biggest snags in this debate comes in. You've got to understand that (at least in U.S. law), semantics is huge. What does this word mean, how does the law interpret it, how does its definition then fit in with other statutes and constitutional law.

You may think it is a stupid line to draw, but in order for law to work, it is all about lines and where they are drawn.

If the semantics of the meaning did not matter, we would not have this legal battle, on either side. It is exactly what marriage means that is the heart and soul of this argument.

If, legally, civil unions grant, as far as the law and govt. are concerned, the exact same rights as marriage, then why does anyone care either way? Its because pretty much everyone agrees that its all about the word marriage, those that don't have it want it, those that oppose it want to keep it meaning one particular thing.

At this point the semantics is the key, the foundational argument, both in society and the law.

 

[Caly]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

If, legally, civil unions grant, as far as the law and govt. are concerned, the exact same rights as marriage, then why does anyone care either way?

Quick clarification: technically, civil unions do not grant the exact same rights as marriage, since marriage is federally recognized and civil unions are not. Which means two things: 1) the rights of a civil union are not granted outside the couple's state of residence, and 2) any benefits available at the state or local level are still subject to federal taxation. This is separate from the semantics argument but worth mentioning anyway.

Just out of curiousity: if civil unions really were the exact same thing as marriage, wouldn't God oppose them too? Honest question, I am not familiar with the theology here. It seems that if same-sex marriage is what God disapproves of, he'd probably disapprove of it regardless of what it's called.

I do find it interesting that support of civil unions is now considered the "moderate" position on this issue. That certainly wasn't always the case. Public opinion is definitely shifting, though it's always a three-steps-forward-two-steps-back sort of process.

 

[NoisemakerArrow]

"I'm sorry you feel that way. Anyhow, I don't think anyone did. I know I didn't."

It is a waste of time because the right answer is already obvious.

Marriage is a state issue. That's why you need a license and a witness other than the FSM.

"1) The one that invented the concept of sex and implemented it in humans."

I dispute the assumption that some god did that.

"2) No can do! Only you can prove this God to you. Nor is it easy. You have to look for him."

"If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia." - Thomas Szasz

Well, how can anyone push what their god wants unto me, when I don't believe their god exists? This is democracy? Also, what makes people so sure they know what their god wants? Did god appear to them in the cake icing and tell them? (If so, see above.) For a long time, infallible Popes said there is a Limbo. Now another infallible Pope says there is no Limbo. Who is right? That's why religions are such a load of bovine excrement. How can they all claim to be the only right one? Obviously only one is right or none of them are right. So instead of wasting time with pointless "interfaith dialogues" that never go anywhere, let's start voting some religions off the island.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

"3) "

I have here an ancient holy text from MY god, the ONLY true god, the one that kicks your god's ***, and in it it is written "let them mind their own damn business and stop dictating to consenting adults what they may do, for yea, I shall smite them with a discrimination lawsuit and to pay the legal fees I shall garnish their wages, and their children's wages, and their children's children's wages unto the tenth generation."

"However, the issue I'm taking up has nothing to do with politics. Pointed this out above already."

If the issue is *** marriage (Won't someone PLEASE change the word filter and just ban people who use it as an insult??? That's flaming, anyway.), then it has everything to do with politics, in the same way that religion has everything to do with politics. It's a smokescreen, not a real issue. Things like euthanasia, abortion and *** marriage have only one right answer, and that answer is yes. There is no debate. How can Westerners be such hypocrites as to profess an undying devotion to freedom yet constantly seek ways to limit it, and on such flimsy premises? You like freedom? Then the answer to all three is yes. Leave people alone and mind your own business. You don't like something? Don't do it. But who the hell do you think you are to tell others how to run their affairs?

(Not the you you, the general you.)

 

[stephan]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Here is where I think one of the biggest snags in this debate comes in. You've got to understand that (at least in U.S. law), semantics is huge. What does this word mean, how does the law interpret it, how does its definition then fit in with other statutes and constitutional law.

You may think it is a stupid line to draw, but in order for law to work, it is all about lines and where they are drawn.

If the semantics of the meaning did not matter, we would not have this legal battle, on either side. It is exactly what marriage means that is the heart and soul of this argument.

I might agree that semantics do matter, but only if civil union has a different status from marriage. However, to me it seems Thrandir is fine with the thought that homosexual people in a civil union have the same benefits as heterosexuals in a marriage, only he wants us all to call one civil union and the other marriage (because of tradition and history). Such a thing is pointless in my view. Hence my response.

On the other hand, if marriage is preserved for heterosexuals and gives more benefits than a civil union, than there is an inequality that is IMO unjustifiable. Then the issue is of course more than semantical.

 

[snickersnack]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

If marriage remains in it's traditional meaning, then it means a union between a man and a woman.

Please explain in what way Marriage as it exists in contemporary American society is in any way "traditional." I am viewing marriage as a societal institution. Maybe you are not, but in that case, I don't see what your posts have to do with the rest of the thread.

At the same time I don’t see why religion beliefs would have a say in what is allowed to society as a whole.

They don't have direct influence; there have to be enough voters who want vote based on a particular ideology. People are allowed to vote on whatever basis they want, and unfortunately, some voters feel the need to dictate what others do in their private lives. Some people feel that they know what is best for everyone and that it is their duty to try to force the behavioral standards they have adopted onto others. It's been stated earlier in the thread that (in general) Christians feel that homosexual behavior is a misuse of human sexuality. And so every effort is made to limit and frown upon homosexuality.

I want to amend Thrandir's analogy: God didn't bring home crayons, he brought home chocolates, and one of his children is allergic to caffeine. Instead of eating the chocolate, the allergic kid melts it and paints on some paper with it. Now God is angry?

 

[Thrandir]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I want to amend Thrandir's analogy: God didn't bring home crayons, he brought home chocolates, and one of his children is allergic to caffeine. Instead of eating the chocolate, the allergic kid melts it and paints on some paper with it. Now God is angry?

I think I understand your point with this amendment, but just to be certain (before I respond and maybe make a mistake) what exactly are you trying to convey?

 

[Thyiad1]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

@Thyiad:
God would grant you the same 'rights' as anyone else whether you believe in him or not.
[/Christian PoV]

And that means as much to me as the Easter Bunny wishing me well.

I'm quite aware I'm treading a thin line of racking off the believers here but you are consistantly ignoring and belittling MY beliefs. That's arrogant and rude of you. You can believe what you want, I don't care but you are attempting to impose your beliefs on others despite the fact they don't affect you in any way, so you bet I'll challenge you on that.

I'll say this again. Does anyone have any reasonable argument that does not involve 1) American constitution or 2) religion for not accepting g ay marriage as marriage rather than civil unions?

Because I don't think you do. You can't hang an agument on 1) because not everyone is from the US and you can't hang it on 2) because not everyone shares your belief.

So, last call; give me ONE reason (excluding the two above which I don't recognize) why the word marriage can't be used in same sex relationships.

One reason.

 

[skiffcz]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

One reason.

Hm. First I have to "box" myself a little, so there will be no mistake made about my "social background" .. or how to call it.

1, IT student, 23 years, raised in somehow "undefined" era of communism/capitalism break in 1990 (central Europe).
2, Baptized pagan. Paradox is, that the sole fact of dipping me in that water without my cooperation and then imposing some virtual obligations on me was the strongest reason for my disobedience and refusal of such action. Its simply wrong.
3, Right wing would call me hippie. Left wing would call me techno anarchist. Both mainly because I dont live in polarized world and they cant understand it.
4, Hail to the George Carlin. I miss him so much.

Now on topic. I will now try to simulate your opponent (altough I am mostly on your ideological side). From a very unbiased point of view, homosexual pairs are indeed different from heterosexual ones. There is a less chance for them to have an offspring for example, which is main economy engine - manpower, so they deserve all human rights, as they are equal individuals, ofc, but marriage brings not only that, also some economic merits, because people are expected to refund with more little Bobs and Bettys to keep the wheels running. In this perspective, I see marriage not as human right, but social privilege (official, legal act of marriage ofc, not freedom to choose your partner). Its very crude definition, but I fight here with my limited word stock as a non native speaker. I guess you get the point though. So here it would make sense to distinguish homo and heterosexual marriages.

However, the main reason may be (and you said it already somewhere) as simple as social acceptability. We are not allowed to eat dogs and cats here, for example. I dont see any factual difference between cat and rabbit or pig, but still, some things are allowed to be processed for food (I hope the frigidity of the term is clear) , but some are just too cute, and suddenly it is animal tortue. Cultural and historical background af an area could be just a reason of itself. I could not care less myself, but its just so, that quiet a majority still disagree. Bad luck. Try to get the best for yourself, but deal with the reality - most of the folks dont want you to eat kittens. World is not equal. It would not work if it was.

 

[Grisu]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

What Thyiad said. If someone says, same sex marriages should not be allowed, they impose their beliefs on others. If the same sex couple is married or not doesn't make any difference to those thinking - due to religious reasons - that it is not "right". This point was already made, and the only answer to it was the fear of a "new Sodom and Gomorrah".

Let's be honest: believing that same sex marriage really results in the end of the world is a bit ... well, you know. Furthermore, that exact fear indicates that one who believes in it actually thinks that same sex marriages are immoral per se. And that actually is discriminating, whether it's based on religious beliefs or not. It's not like there's any harm done when same sex couple get married, now is it?

Of course one could argue, that they find same sex relationships offending in general. That is personal belief and very debatable, since it leads to the question, what is generally acceptable in our society. Then we could start arguing, if kissing in public is offending or holding hands.
On a side-note: for people thinking that way, it shouldn't make any difference if a same sex coupled is/gets married or not, because even the fact that they are a couple would be offending to them. And as it seems it's more about the marriage in this discussion, whereas relationships are "ok".

So apparently it all comes down to the term marriage, and IIRC up till now no one gave a complete overview of the etymology of the word "marriage". I don't think that anyone can prove, that it really is a "copyrighted" term for Christianity. Other societies and religions use the term,too. Can anyone say for sure, if the word was used first and primarily by Christians? I'd really like to know. But even if it was, the term "marriage" doesn't necessarily mean the same anymore. Meaning of words is in constant change and is dependant on social and linguistic context.

So, after all, is it a fight for copyright and definition of a single word??? :shakes head:

 

[skiffcz]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

So apparently it all comes down to the term marriage, and IIRC up till now no one gave a complete overview of the etymology of the word "marriage". I don't think that anyone can prove, that it really is a "copyrighted" term for Christianity.

In fact I believe it was originaly a non-religious institution, back there when people belonged to the land, and landlords needed to control migration of their population. So they said - you cannot marry someone from another shire without my permission - and that required to beaurocratize the whole act. After some time, when church got more influence and was bind tighter to the to the wordly power marriage got incorporated to official religious rituals. Before that, it was enough to say - we are married and that was it.

I wont put here any evidence though, because right now I am too lazy to find any, but Im pretty sure that an official act of marriage is not originaly a religious idea (at least in christian world).

EDIT: it ofcourse is much older idea (and much much older than Christ himself) but Im talking about an institution here

 

[Andronicus]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Quick perusal of the wiki-page for "Marriage"

I know it's by no means a definite and infallible source of information, but what is these days, huh?

No specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage among the Greeks and Romans; only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly. In Ancient Greece, men usually married when they were in their 30s. They expected their wives to be in their early teens. This age-structured relationship was also prevalent in same-sex relationships among the Ancient Greeks.

...

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. The term, however, was rarely associated with same-sex relationships, even though the relationships themselves were common. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal.

...

From the early Christian era, marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Prior to 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties. The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.



Some interesting insights for the two minutes it took me to research it.

 

[Cygnus]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

One reason.

That it offends a significant number of people, "significant" being loosely defined. It's the reason given for excluding hate speech from freedom of expression.

It is also the basis of Indian-style secularism where the government actively promotes all religious, often contradictory, viewpoints (including atheism and agnosticism) rather than enforce a separation of religion from state. Anything moderately provocative may be hit with a court-issued ban (you are free to criticize the government, though, just not something as touchy as religion) on the argument that peace enforced through a partial loss of rights is better than rioting in the streets. I don't agree with the viewpoint (on the basis that it is short-term shortsightedness that impairs long-term social progress) but, knowing India's recent history and current situation, I can see where it is coming from.

 

[sirpoopsalot]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

4, Hail to the George Carlin. I miss him so much.

Yeah, when one of the recent posters mentioned "God given rights" I immediately thought of George Carlin's take on that phrase. To (poorly) summarize his view: everyone has to earn their rights. Every single one of them. God doesn't give you rights to anything.

His presentation and reasoning was much more polished than I could make it with my flawed memory, so I won't really try.

 

[crazy_bear]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I'm impressed that this topic has stayed on topic and civil for this long. Few forums would be capable of this. SPF members are the best.:thumbup:

In any case, in reply to the (potential) children of marriage, if this were the reason for marriage being distinct then sterile people wouldn't be allowed to marry, and lesbian couples who are willing to have children through artificial insemination should receive double the benefits since they have double the childbearing potential compared to a man-woman couple.

As generally acceptable or not in society: using the example of people opposed to eating animals that are kept as pets; first realize that this is not religiously motivated and so is clearly distinct from the single gendered marriage which involves applying a religious belief to a person that doesn't believe in it. Second one would have to consider the reason for it being offensive (emotional harm) the degree to which it is offensive, if it is exclusionary (ie: this group is allowed to eat pets, but nobody else can...) and finally if there is harm from not being prohibited. Opposition to eating pets would pass all these tests where opposition to *** marriage would pass at most one of them.

Finally: A simple test for christians: My god is right behind you. He is invisible inaudible and immaterial but when you do stuff he doesn't like he is going to punish you in petty and unusual ways, like making you stub your toe or getting a paper cut. Try and prove he isn't there.

 

[jrlafrance]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I'll post more when I get home, but for now:

So, after all, is it a fight for copyright and definition of a single word??? :shakes head:

I think in the litigious world that we live in today, it does come down to a definition of a single word. In my opinion, it is the concept of of the word that is getting perverted and changed so that it is a "socially" acceptable word. Just because "socially" acceptability changes over time, doesn't mean that it is any more right than it used to be. Even from a non-religious point of view, why has it taken this long for same-sex unions to "socially" acceptable? 20 years ago, same-sex "couples" were very infrequently heard of. Why is that? Because society as a whole didn't accept it, it wasn't the norm, and those relationships were considered wrong. Flash forward to the present, and you can't even watch TV without seeing a show that has a *** high school student, or same-sex partnership in it. Why is that? Because society has become desensitized to it. Same as violence on TV. Movie rating that today are getting PG-13, used to get an R rating without a pause. It's sad. Like I said earleir, it's just another step toward the de-moralization of our world. Having said that, I certainly don't hate gays. I personally don't know or have relations with any *** people, but my beliefs wouldn't hinder me from doing that. Like Thrandir said, we are to love all, and let one's decisions in life speak for themselves. Come judgement day, we all will be held accountable for everything we've done during our lifetime.

"...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23)

but we have this promise:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 316)

More later!