Homosexual marriage II

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I have a little trouble with both the terms "homosexual" and "opposite sex", actually, myself.

It's a more binary and rigid way of looking at human existance than my other observations support. I don't find it a useful structure for the evaluation of human potential.

I agree. I find it quite significant that the word "homosexual" didn't exist until the early 1900's, and the concept of a "homosexual" (or in the old speech, Uranian) person was invented in the 19th-century by a German sexologist. Doesn't exactly lead me to put much faith in the idea.

And if I thought men, qua men, were actually "opposite" to women, tempermentally and biologically, I would probably advocate "androcide", just as a safety measure for the species.

Because, clearly, it would HAVE to be the men that would be dangerous, and not the women.

But seriously, I agree with you, sis. I'm not very keen on traditional ideas of "feminine" and "masculine". I mean, there's some truth to them; there is some sort of temperamental difference between the sexes, but the vast majority of it, I think, is nothing but smoke.

[Rían]

I disagree. I think God made men and women (as opposed to a creature that could reproduce asexually) on purpose, for many good reasons.

[Lief Erikson]

I also strongly disagree. I've seen definite differences between men and women. They're psychological as well as physical, and they're wonderful! The masculine and feminine roles parallel the relationship between the Bride of Christ and her Husband! The marriage relationships and gender roles are wonderful signs God has put on Earth pointing toward Heaven.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I didn't say that there are no differences; in fact, if you will note, I said, "there is some truth to them". I just feel that they are often exaggerated. I certainly won't say that men and women have no psychological differences; I just think that what people see is often quite exaggerated. In the real world, it's my experience that girls often act quite ditzy, in such a manner that it's clear that they aren't actually dumb, they just do it to be "cute", or because some macho dingbats find it sexy. I find this obnoxious, because it isn't really what it is to be feminine.

In the world of the conservative Catholic college where I live, the differences are far, far more exaggerated. It's probably because I live at TAC that I have come to feel this way.

You are absolutely right, Rian, that God made man and woman different, and with good reason. I just get queasy from the excessively docile, demure, and submissive to the point of bordering on slavish manner in which girls in some conservative circles. Not to say that acting like that to some degree is bad; it's just way overdone where I live.

You, Lief, are also right. Men and women are different, and this is a sign of the mystical marriage of Christ and Church. But one has to be careful of taking these analogies too far. Similarly, the relationship of a father to his children mirrors that of God with his creation, but we'd hardly want children to start offering sacrifices to their father, or regarding him as the definitive measure of right and wrong, now would we? Similarly, I think it's important to remember that the Christ-Church relationship is like the husband-wife relationship....only raised to the power of infinity.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

By the by...

Originally Posted by MrBishop

Churches do NOT marry people...churches bless the union. The GVT marries people (hence the license and registration of the union).

Churches perform the ceremony and fill out the paperwork which gets sent to the same GVT office as the paperwork that a JOP might fill out after a civil ceremony.

No paperwork..no marriage, no legal and binding union and none of the perks that sis mentioned several posts ago.

With the separation of church and state, the former should have no say as to who can and cannot be joined in the legal union set by the latter. Unfortunately, that just isn't the case.

I hafta disagree. No culture has looked on government bureaucrats drinking as being the sine qua non of marriage. Marriage predated government.

Also, marriage is not, in its essence, a legal union, but a personal one. The government does not make the marriage, but the two people binding themselves permanently to one another.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Also, marriage is not, in its essence, a legal union, but a personal one. The government does not make the marriage, but the two people binding themselves permanently to one another.

And yet much of what marriage is today, is determinded through society and government, not the two partners. All the rights, duties and regulations that come with marriage, when and whether the binding can be broken/dissolved, all these are not at the whim by the two participants. The government may not choose who marries who, but they do 'make' part of the marriage.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

They decide what comes with the legal union which generally follows marriage, yes, but marriage does not belong to the government (and thank God for that! I would hate it if one of the most beautiful things in the world were in the hands of petty bureaucrats)

[Coffeehouse]

In the end marriage is like you point out a very personal union between two people and whatever legal commitment & agreements are involved the marriage itself is not bound to gov't per se, but it is bound quite tightly to society if you think about it, and since society today (in most places on Earth) are centred on a government with monopoly on force and laws you could say it's not independent of it.

But there's so many ways of getting and being married. Christian ways, Atheist ways, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc, etc. and so why not homosexual marriage too. No one has monopoly on marriage except the gov't that needs to verify it. But I believe that although a majority of people in a country, who are represented by their gov't, believe that homosexual marriage is somehow wrong, or difficult to accept, can not impose that will onto those who do want such a marriage. It's a thin line to walk, but it is a right to marry whomever you want as long as it does not blatantly violate any deep-founded norms in a society (like incest).

I happen to believe that the idea of God is an idea without roots in reality, an illusion of the mind, and that therefore, whatever beliefs about a God, Gods or no Gods at all, one must be careful about defining in too absolutist terms how human beings may interact with one another, and any 'roles' a man or woman should have. As we human beings are self-aware and possess a keen mind like no other creature on the planet, we should definitely take the open-minded road and utilize our 'gift' to as best as possible. Also if that means letting people of the same sex marry if they want to. However, if same-sex marriages should be 'verified' inside a religion is of course up to the religion's followers. And there lies a tricky part in religion, that it is in many ways rigid and conservative when sometimes it professes to be the opposite (But I digress!)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

This is all by-the-by, folks.

When we talk about 'marriage" as in "making gay marriage legal", we're not talking about "let us not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment." We're talking about a legal status recognised by the government. As such, it's clearly within the purview of legislation as to who can participate. Those child molesters in Texas can't get their 'marriages' recognised because the government specifies that you can only be 'married' to one person at a time. God probably has an opinion on it, but the government has one, too.

The question, therefore, is whether marriage is an inalienable right, or whether the right is used in a discriminatory way. It's the same as women's suffrage, and has the same kind of discussion.

But it's hard to think of another "right" where both parties are eligible, but not with each other. You don't have a valid contract with a minor, because the minor can't sign one. You can't buy someone as a slave, even if they're willing, because the activity itself is forbidden. You can't marry someone who is already married to someone else.

But, in the case of gay marriage, it would be perfectly lawful for either person to marry, and yet they can't with each other. Effectively, it's a miscegenation law. Absent a pressing reason to prohibit (and the 2nd Amendment precludes reasons based on the sacred texts of any particular sect) the Supreme Court has already ruled (in 1967) those are unconstitutional.

[Coffeehouse]

Well put.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

When we talk about 'marriage" as in "making gay marriage legal", we're not talking about "let us not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment." We're talking about a legal status recognised by the government.

I don't think Shakespeare was talking about an actual marriage (in any sense of the word), merely an affection between two people.

But that's a bit off-topic.

Anyway, what I wanted to say is, I agree, we are talking about a legal status recognised by the government, which is not the same thing as marriage. It is merely a governmental institution; marriage transcends that. That's why, it is not ultimately true to say that gay marriage is possible in California, but not in Florida. Either is is possible in both places, or it is impossible in both places. What a local government may or may not say has absolutely no fact on the real truth of the matter.

[Tessar]

Then by your standards, the entire point of this thread is moot (no pun intended).


To have a true, effective debate you sort of need to all be working from at least one similar assumption... We're all using the word marriage, but apparently everyone has a different definition of it .

[BeardofPants]

Wait... what? You saying that marriage can't evolve? Change? Sure, you *could* argue that marriage predates govt, but then you'd also have to say that its very basis comes from the evolutionary predecessor of government (if you believe in evolution). Certainly, marriage or pairing as a concept has come about through society of one form or another and the two are tightly linked. To say that marriage is not linked to the govt & legislation is burying your head in the sand.

I'd also like to say that marriage predates christianity too. Lets just toss that out there.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Anyway, what I wanted to say is, I agree, we are talking about a legal status recognised by the government, which is not the same thing as marriage.

A matter of opinion, it seems. To me that legal status defines marriage a great deal. How many people marry really only for themselves? Most do it for the tax regime, to get a certain nationality, to settle care and enheritance for either the children and the other partner, or to be recognized as one couple in the eyes of family, the rest of society or their god.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I don't think Shakespeare was talking about an actual marriage (in any sense of the word), merely an affection between two people.

But that's a bit off-topic.

Anyway, what I wanted to say is, I agree, we are talking about a legal status recognised by the government, which is not the same thing as marriage. It is merely a governmental institution; marriage transcends that. That's why, it is not ultimately true to say that gay marriage is possible in California, but not in Florida. Either is is possible in both places, or it is impossible in both places. What a local government may or may not say has absolutely no fact on the real truth of the matter.

Don't quibble...something is sponsored by God, but it may or may not be called "marriage." When you purchase a "marriage license" in any state, you buy it from the government. The states set the rules for who participates. God's rules, you'll notice, have gone through several evolutions themselves, but to say "God's rules are 'marriage' , and civil rules aren't" is completely a-historical, and, frankly, nonsensical.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Wait... what? You saying that marriage can't evolve? Change?

What would cause it to do so? If marriage in fact predates government, and is really the grandfather of it, then I don't see what could make the cause subject to the whims of its effect.

Sure, you *could* argue that marriage predates govt, but then you'd also have to say that its very basis comes from the evolutionary predecessor of government (if you believe in evolution).

I take it that you mean the family was a primitive predecessor of a government? If so, then yes, certainly.

Certainly, marriage or pairing as a concept has come about through society of one form or another and the two are tightly linked. To say that marriage is not linked to the govt & legislation is burying your head in the sand.

Depends on what you mean by society. If you simply mean people coming together, than yes, but the term seems to have, in common usage, more to it than that.

I'd also like to say that marriage predates christianity too. Lets just toss that out there.

Of course it does.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Don't quibble...something is sponsored by God, but it may or may not be called "marriage." When you purchase a "marriage license" in any state, you buy it from the government. The states set the rules for who participates.

My point is that, as far as I'm concerned, the real deal is not the legal union which a state can arbitrarily tinker with and change.

God's rules, you'll notice, have gone through several evolutions themselves, but to say "God's rules are 'marriage' , and civil rules aren't" is completely a-historical, and, frankly, nonsensical.

Civil marriage is often something which is only a marriage in a very loose sense. Witness the lavender marriages of Hollywood, or the marriage of Tchaikovsky. These things cannot be called marriages in the fullest sense of the word, wouldn't you agree?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Civil marriage is often something which is only a marriage in a very loose sense. Witness the lavender marriages of Hollywood, or the marriage of Tchaikovsky. These things cannot be called marriages in the fullest sense of the word, wouldn't you agree?

No, I wouldn't. And I'm mortally sure I've spent more time married than you have.

You're a romantic, and that's charming. But I don't believe, for an instant, that what you're referring to as "marriage in the fullest sense of the word" has anything to do with "marriage the legal condition." It may not even overlap. I don't even believe that it necessarily exists even in its most aspirational form, represented by Holy Orders. Whether it's a gift of the Holy Spirit or has some other source, it isn't conferred during a ceremony anywhere, and my experience is that it's equally available to persons of every possible sexual identity.

Things that spring from Grace are like that. On the one hand, eternal, and eternally available. On the other hand, seldom experienced in a consistant way.

So, if your issue is God, no action we can take would influence the bestowal of this gift on people, whatever their love object. Not our call. Therefore, we can go forward, secure in the knowledge that we could be in a blessed condition of holy marriage to our teddy bear, if God so willed it. What the state says is irrelevant. This, btw, is the POV of those child-molesters in Texas.

But when we talk about writing legislation, in this country, we talk about the Constitution. That's the reference source.

If you're really lucky, and you work astonishingly hard, you might occasionally climb the mountain so that you can see a bit of "marriage in the fullest sense of the word." Then the fog rolls in and you grope your way down to regular life.


If you're really smart, you start planning your next hike up during the trip down.

[inked]

How many was he married to? How many were civil unions? How many were shack-ups, not even one-night-stands? Were the "partners" satisfied? Should the state have a say?

So many questions, so few answers. But I do hope we have gotten past seeing merely human or automobile in this scenario, don't you?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...,000-cars.html

[Tessar]

As far as I recall this is an argument about marriage between two humans.

It has nothing to do with cars, animals, door frames, or whatever other thing you care to look up.

[GrayMouser]

If we're talking about "traditional marriage" as it existed over the course of human history, the definition would be something along the lines of "an agreement between two families where one family (usually the male's), in order to continue it's lineage, obtains a nubile member of the other family in exchange for some consideration."

There are variations- matrilineal, like my wife's tribe, where the man marries into the woman's family; the "considerations" vary considerably: some cultures have bride prices, where the girl's family is compensated for the expense of raising her, some cultures have dowries, where the woman's family pays the man's for taking her off their hands.

But 'marriage' does not pre-date 'government' in the broadest sense. Marriage is a socially-sanctioned arrangement, and if society doesn't agree, it isn't marriage.