10-25-2004, 10:38 AM | #21 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Nurv,
you wrote, "Studying marriage accross cultures is completely fascinating!" Well, now time for a little empiricism in your study and extraction of information. What is the dominant form or Marriage across cultures? Is it between the sexes or is it same sex? What percentage of each? You indicated above that marriage was a committment formed for the the perpetuation of family and the society in which it was practiced. How many children are born of inter-gender marriages? How many to the insignificantly few same-gender liasons? What conclusions can you base on the data? Inquiring minds want to know!
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
10-25-2004, 11:07 AM | #22 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Eek. That comment was based on some lectures we had on marriage in Anthropology 101. That was two years ago and I didn't bring the textbook with me to Sweden. (It's called "Mirror of Humanity" IIRC)
I don't remember very much. I only remember that there were different examples of how different cultures evaluated marriage and what the purposes were. I don't remember all, but the purposes were one or more of the following: (in no particular order) Love Procreation Form a political alliance Form a financial partnership Form a team for better work capabilities Stable family environment Others That's all I have for you buddy. This was our class thinking of examples based on our textbook and case studies IIRC. We thought of at least 10 or 12, why can't I think of the rest! EDIT: I said it was fascinating because I really enjoyed those lectures, and I think the subject is interesting. EDIT2: It's interesting to note that the gender and/or number of people involved doesn't affect how to achieve the above goals, but rather it's how the culture perceives the goals should be obtained. (Ex. If one of the goals is procreation at least one man and at least one woman would be involved.)
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Nurvingiel : 10-25-2004 at 11:16 AM. |
||
10-25-2004, 11:36 AM | #23 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Well, Nurv, that'll have to do, I suppose !
It is a great resounding lie that the presence of one occasional aberration negates the whole argument that experience and nature are not guides to human institutions such as marriage. This argument when applied to the barons of technology is used to argue they should not exist as they do the body politic harm in some fashion. Yet the same line of argument for same-sex "marriage is refusted as nonapplicable. in your study, Nurv, is marriage an inter-gender event or a same-sex event?
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
10-25-2004, 11:47 AM | #24 | |||||||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
Maybe the textbook was "Mirror to Humanity". It was really good anyway - I kept it (in Canada). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We did not specify the gender of the people in the brainstorm because that was not the point. That's why I said this: Quote:
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
10-25-2004, 11:55 AM | #25 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Nurv,
If 99% of human experience is that marriage is an inter-gender event, does the evidence support same-sex "marriage"? If 99% of human sexual behaviour is same species, does 1% bestiality justify human-goat "marriage"? If successful barons of finance are inherently bad for society and constitute <1%, why doen't all behaviour at <1% get treated the same?
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
10-25-2004, 12:07 PM | #26 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
No it doesn't (and if you cite 99%, I assume you mean over the history of time, which introduces complexities).
It says that cultures usually decided that they liked inter-gender marriage the best. That makes no moral inferences same-sex marriage whatsoever. But this thread shouldn't be an "is gay marriage okay" debate, because we already have a thread for that, where we discuss the topic ad nauseum. EDIT: Oops, I misread your first sentence. I was not making a commentary on the legitimacy of same-sex marriage in my original post anyway.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-25-2004, 12:25 PM | #27 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Nurv,
What does the study of marriage in all available cultures for which we have data say (and I think LOUDLY) about the nature of marriage on the basis of hte empiric evidence?
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
10-25-2004, 12:30 PM | #28 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
It says most people have monogamous, inter-gender marriages. Data (at least in this case) says nothing about morality, if that's what you were getting at.
... should we wander over to the GLB thread?
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-25-2004, 12:46 PM | #29 | |
High King at Annuminas Administrator
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wyoming - USA
Posts: 10,752
|
Quote:
__________________
My Fanfic: Letters of Firiel Tales of Nolduryon Visitors Come to Court Ñ á ë ?* ó ú é ä ï ö Ö ñ É Þ ð ß ® ™ [Xurl=Xhttp://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=ABCXYZ#postABCXYZ]text[/Xurl] Splitting Threads is SUCH Hard Work!! |
|
10-25-2004, 12:59 PM | #30 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Nurv,
This thread is to discuss the nature of marriage. I am merely pointing out that the study of marriage shows it to be a certain way. The data define the institution empirically. Therefore the onus to change the definition of marriage is on those who propose to change it. It does not matter that they propose heterosexual or homosexual changes. Marriage has a clearly defined role in human cultures across time and space and religions and every assault brought against it in known data sources such as you have studied (and there have been multitudinous attempts) have not succeeded in accomplishing that. Why, then, should the definition of marriage be changed?
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 Last edited by inked : 10-25-2004 at 01:01 PM. |
10-25-2004, 02:37 PM | #31 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Well I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. Actually, I guess we're not off-topic at all, so onwards!
There is no clear definition of marriage. That was another thing we discovered in our class brainstorm. The definition, if there is one, changes over time and culture. So why not change the social norm in Western society (if you are a member and would like to see it change, as I am)? There is no precedent that says you cannot change the definition, in fact, the precedent is opposite. The definition has been fairly fluid in the past. (ie. inter-racial marriages) Edit: And two answer your second question, I think it should be changed to extend the right of marriage to gay people. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, marriage is a right.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Nurvingiel : 10-25-2004 at 02:38 PM. |
||
10-25-2004, 03:00 PM | #32 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Nurv,
The onus of proof is on you. The variations in forms of marriage DOES NOT negate the institution of marriage in cross-cultural settings and chronologically. Why do you propose that a change is necessary in the cases you cite? Empirically, you are wrong.
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
10-25-2004, 03:09 PM | #33 | ||||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
But what I was getting at is...
Quote:
I will make comments largely on Canadian marriage laws, because I don't know that much on the subject of marriage laws in countries besides my own. Quote:
You would tell two people who love each other they cannot marry because of historical numbers? What about all the other awful things we've done in history - rampant racism, witch burnings etc. They happily do not define our current laws and customs. Why should the treatment of homosexual people be based on past prejudices and/or lack of evidence of gay marriage (which as I stated earlier in this post is actually not important anyway).
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
10-25-2004, 03:35 PM | #34 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Nurv,
What I would say is that we have a transcultural, transsocietal, transchronicity definition that has served the human race in all known cultures. Why should it change? If you wish me to accept the allegation that homosexuality is genetic on the basis of non-existent data, that seems to be an argument from data. Why, then, is my argument from data (and overwhelming data that you adduced) considered invalid? By the by, did you see the cover of TIME alleging the existence of a "God gene"? I no more accept that paucity of sugggestive data from an inadequate sample than I do the "homosexual gene". This is bad science in both areas. But the data on marriage are extensive and replete and concurred in by many realms of study. If (alleged) data is good for one area, why is established. rock solid data on the inter-gender nature of 99+% definition of marriage inadequate?
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
10-25-2004, 03:44 PM | #35 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
i think in the end the change would do little or no real harm, and might do a lot to promote attitudes of tolerance... much like the change on interracial marriage... which was once just as foreign an idea to the general population
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
10-25-2004, 04:02 PM | #36 | |||||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
Gay marriage should be legal in Canada (and is already, in some provinces listed later) because marriage is a right granted to all adults to marry one person (at a time). It is now up to the provinces to change their marriage laws, because the Charter is more important than provincial law (IIRC). However, gay marriage is already legal in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, Québec, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and the Yukon Territory. I actually should have pointed this out before, because the definition of marriage has already changed here! (Heh, that's slightly important. ) Source here. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on gay marriage. I actually have a copy of the Charter, and I didn't bring it to Sweden with me. Otherwise I'd give you an exact quote. I had a hard time finding the Charter itself. Quote:
However, whether it is a choice or not, gay people still have the right to get married in Canada. Quote:
Let me ask another way. Just because everyone has done something one way, is that a reason we should not change? The reason why I comment only on Canadian law is becauase I don't know enough about marriage laws in other countries. I'm just glad that I live in a country with liberal laws. Now we just need to lower the voting age to 16, but that's another thread.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
10-25-2004, 04:07 PM | #37 |
Elven Maiden
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,309
|
Ah! I was at my dad's and I missed this fascinating discussion! I'll have to catch up after I go play Playstation.
I heard once that some pagans were really into same-sex relationships, holding it in an even higher position than heterosexual. That's all I know about that.... I love all you guys! |
10-25-2004, 04:08 PM | #38 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Really? Who? What? Where? I'm curious.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-25-2004, 04:48 PM | #39 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
(I don't mean to be disrespectful, but really! No clear definition? Well, how about a clear trend, then!)
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|
10-25-2004, 04:57 PM | #40 | |||||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
Quote:
I just can't explain it better. The whole thing took place two years ago, and I have no recollection of anyone bringing up gay marriage. I just thought, hey, look at all the different meanings/definitions/what-have-you of marriage across cultures. Maybe it's not a stretch to say that two gay people could get married, since there isn't a clear definition of marriage. What I mean by no clear definition is marriage is described differently by different cultures. And hey, the definition has already changed in Canada. Quote:
Now you know what I think about gay marriage ad nauseum. But I'm drawn to intelligent debates, especially ones where I feel very strongly, like trying to stop the limitations of human rights.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homosexual marriage II | klatukatt | General Messages | 736 | 05-15-2013 01:15 PM |
Homosexual marriage | Rían | General Messages | 999 | 12-06-2006 04:46 PM |
The Marriage of Mac and PC? | Rían | General Messages | 9 | 04-21-2006 04:22 AM |
Was Beren and Luthien the first man-elf marriage | Telcontar_Dunedain | The Silmarillion | 72 | 01-17-2005 05:33 PM |
Women, last names and marriage... | afro-elf | General Messages | 55 | 01-09-2003 01:37 AM |