marriage

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Thanks, Elfearz,

but I would say that common law is the inheritance from English law. In common law marriage is between male and female. Perhaps this is why the judges and the legislature are ignoring common law. But hey, they are Canadian, so what does it matter to me? They can marry off polar bears or woverines if they so legislate! The question comes to mind if the Charter covers that too? LOL (See the post-election analysis I posted this date for an ironic commentary on tis aspect, albeit tangentially relevant!)

I don't really have a comment about the articles, but do not make fun of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I know your comment was meant lightly, but it was a little out of place with the laws. I don't go around making fun of the Bill of Rights - the Charter deserves the same respect.

Anyway, I actually think common-law marriage laws are stupid. We should just get rid of them, they aren't really useful to anyone. If people wanted to get married then they would - if two people want to live together I see no reason to mess around with their marital status.

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by inked

Thanks, Elfearz,

but I would say that common law is the inheritance from English law. In common law marriage is between male and female. Perhaps this is why the judges and the legislature are ignoring common law. But hey, they are Canadian, so what does it matter to me? They can marry off polar bears or woverines if they so legislate! The question comes to mind if the Charter covers that too? LOL (See the post-election analysis I posted this date for an ironic commentary on tis aspect, albeit tangentially relevant!)

Yes, common law is inherited from English law. But legislation overrides common law, not so much to 'ignore' it as to help the law to develop to meet societal needs. In most ex-colonies, a lot has changed since the 1800s . And I would say that it is the prerogative of Canada's government & citizens to determine what their societal needs are.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Anyway, I actually think common-law marriage laws are stupid. We should just get rid of them, they aren't really useful to anyone. If people wanted to get married then they would - if two people want to live together I see no reason to mess around with their marital status.

The common law definition of marriate is "a union between a man and a woman, for life, to the exclusion of all others". It comes from an English case, from, (iirc) some time in the 1850s, perhaps even earlier. Many, many people agree that it's somewhat ancient & obsolete and should be changed by legislation (then again, many, many people disagree )

[inked]

Geez, Nurv,

It took 9 weeks for you to get riled! I've heard that Canadians were laid back but this is a bit much even for ya'll, isn't it?

Speaking in terms of marriage, the Primates of the Anglican Communion have affirmed the Lambeth Statement on Human Sexuality 1998. They have further asked the ACA and ECUSA to voluntarily remove themselves from the Anglican Consultative Council until 2008 - that means to absent themselves from Communion-wide events - because of the erring stances taken by Canada and the USA churches on the issues of homosexuality/marriage/consecration/etc.

I will post the accessible sites for the documents from ECUSA, but I am less familiar with the ACA web stuff.

This is for discussion of course if you should like. For information based on our prior discussions if you would like.

ECUSA site: report and initial reactions
http://demo.episcopalchurch.org/3577_59050_ENG_HTM.htm

see particularly article #14 of the Communique by the Primates.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Geez, Nurv,

It took 9 weeks for you to get riled! I've heard that Canadians were laid back but this is a bit much even for ya'll, isn't it?

lol, I didn't notice the post until you bumped the thread because I had stopped posting here.

Originally Posted by inked

Speaking in terms of marriage, the Primates of the Anglican Communion have affirmed the Lambeth Statement on Human Sexuality 1998. They have further asked the ACA and ECUSA to voluntarily remove themselves from the Anglican Consultative Council until 2008 - that means to absent themselves from Communion-wide events - because of the erring stances taken by Canada and the USA churches on the issues of homosexuality/marriage/consecration/etc.

I will post the accessible sites for the documents from ECUSA, but I am less familiar with the ACA web stuff.

This is for discussion of course if you should like. For information based on our prior discussions if you would like.

ECUSA site: report and initial reactions
http://demo.episcopalchurch.org/3577_59050_ENG_HTM.htm

see particularly article #14 of the Communique by the Primates.

Is ACA the Anglican Church of Canada?

I don't know if I'd read the articles though Inked, to be honest. If my "section" of the church gets kicked out, well... meh. I won't stop going (in my mind, since I haven't actually gone to church in ages).

[inked]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

lol, I didn't notice the post until you bumped the thread because I had stopped posting here.


Is ACA the Anglican Church of Canada?

I don't know if I'd read the articles though Inked, to be honest. If my "section" of the church gets kicked out, well... meh. I won't stop going (in my mind, since I haven't actually gone to church in ages).

Yes, Nurv, ACA = Anglican Church of Canada.

It's okay if you do not wish to read them. "Kicked out" is precisely the opposite of what has been recommended. To voluntarily absent oneself so as to reflect on the cited Lambeth statement, the Windsor Report recommendations, and to respond is a very Anglican way of saying "best think long and hard about your actions for you are separating yourself from the rest of us."

It remains true that both ACA and ECUSA have been put on notice that if they continue to persist in their removal of themselves from the Anglican consensus, they will have chosen "to walk apart" - but they will not be "kicked out" (though some wish that would indeed happen). The fact that they are not in accord with Anglican teaching has been made UNAVOIDABLY OBVIOUS to them. It is up to ACA or ECUSA to face the consequences of their choices. They are the ones who made them.

The Communique notes that each has to act in accord with its Province rules and regulations to resolve the issues OFFICIALLY one way or another. This is a very Brit mode, to my mind. "Listen here, ACA and ECUSA, you chaps are not cricket. See to it. We give you leave to 2008 to declare yourselves with us or no. Tally-ho!"

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by katya

Sorry if this is a dumb thread, but my mom and I were discussing the topic for hours and never really came to any conclusions. I just wanted to see what everyone else had to say.
What is marriage?

I think that the problem stems from the fact that many very different "situations" are called marriage and therefore it is vacuous to ask ourselves "What is marriage?" without a reference. It is much easier (and more precise) to aswer a question such as "What is civil marriage in the US now?" or "What is catholic marriage for the early church?"

Originally Posted by katya

If you "marry" someone without the church or any legal marriage is it still marriage?

This is the perfect example of what I was saying "No, it is not a church marriage" and "No, it is not a legal marriage", but it could well be that "yes it is a marriage according to the defition of a particular group"

Originally Posted by katya

Also, for what cultures is it true that to be officially married, you have to have sexual intercourse

I am not sure that I know them all. The Catholic canon establishes this rule (as far as I know). But the Italian civil law does not. I believe (but I am not sure) that none of the western Europe countries, nor the US has such a law

Originally Posted by katya

If you agree that sexual intercourse is necessary to finalize the marriage, how do you explain the tradition of the "Virgin" Mary?

You should ask theologicians. I am an atheist so I am not the best person to answer this because I don't beleive in any of these statements, but I think there is no issue here because, according to the tradition, Mary was promised to Joseph, but she was not married to Joseph yet when she virginnally conceived, so no issue there.
Moreover, I don't know whether in those times in that tribe, consummation was a foundamental part of marriage or not


EDIT: I had forgotten the most important part:
yay for same-sex marriage

[katya]

That's a good way of thinking about it, Wizard from Milan (do you have a nickname?). There are a lot of different kinds of marriage. That's an easier way of thinking about it. Of course, that seems to make my marriage to a Coke bottle a few years ago valid, haha. But, that's why I was wondering about different groups to see what, if anything, is the universal definition of marriage. What is shared with most groups?

As for the "Virgin Mary" thing, the whole point of that was that my mom was saying that gays cannot officially marry because you have to have sexual intercourse and be capable of producing offspring. (I asked her about what if a man or woman was not fertile for whatever reason if they could still marry. I was surprised that she actually said no.) I never got a good answer concerning the problem of there being a tradition of a virgin who was married though. I'm not asking if it's true, I'm just saying that if sexual intercourse was necessary for all marriages then the tradition wouldn't exist, one would think. I'm agnostic, by the way.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by katya

That's a good way of thinking about it, Wizard from Milan (do you have a nickname?).

WfM

Originally Posted by katya

that's why I was wondering about different groups to see what, if anything, is the universal definition of marriage. What is shared with most groups?

That is a tall task. It is surely easier to find counterexamples than examples

I think I have given my best shot at the virgin Mary question. I think others more expert than I am should give theirs

[inked]

bump

[Nurvingiel]

I always thought that, in the context of the culture of the writers of the Bible and the people about whom they were writing, the word 'virgin' mean a young woman. Now over many years, the meaning of the word has changed to mean someone who has never had sexual intercourse. If the modern meaning is applied to the ancient text, you could say that Mary had never had sex. However, I don't think this is what the writers of the Bible were thinking.

The Wizard from Milan has another nickname coined by Chrys - Il Milano Mago.

In my opinion, a couple's ability to produce off-spring is not an important factor of marriage in today's society.

Where would you draw the line anyway? Are you married only once you're pregnant? Or when the baby is born? What if you could have children, but choose not to? Would you just not be married until you actively try to have children? If this was societies accepted definition of marriage, how on earth would you legislate this?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

ok so-i aint yet seubscribed to this thread

i am now

[Rían]

I am going to petition my representatives to adopt the marriage custom of Tolkien's elves!

Nurvi - yes, it means "young woman", but the Bible also states specifically that she had not yet had sexual relations. And "young woman" used in a culture can also have the specific implication of not yet having had sexual relations.

[inked]

And, Nurv, when the Hebrew "Textus Receptus" was translated into Greek for the Hellenistic Jews, the word in Hebrew "young woman" was translated "virgin" (parthenos, IIRC) which tells us what the intended meaning of the word was for the Hebrew!

So your argument that the meaning of the word has become more restricted doesn't hold H2O any better than a sieve! The translators had a clear understanding of the meaning and chose it! In addition to clarifying it as Rian notes above!

As to what constitutes marriage and when, I refer you to my earlier and multiple posts on this thread on that subject!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by inked

which tells us what the intended meaning of the word was for the Hebrew

not necessarily, there are always translation issues, no matter what is being translated. some words don't appear in some languages, and so their nearest approximation will be used, for instance

[The Wizard from Milan]

As per request, I repost here the same message that I posted in the thread gay, lesbian, bisexual

I want to reproduce two phrases from the California court ruling (Judge Kramer)
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional,"
"Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
These sentences are quite obvious and not particularly remarkable to me, but I post them because other people here think otherwise

Although, I think this quote would fit well in the thread "religion and individualism" in reply to some comments made there.
Shall I post it there too? I don't mind

[inked]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

not necessarily, there are always translation issues, no matter what is being translated. some words don't appear in some languages, and so their nearest approximation will be used, for instance

Yes and Greek provides just such a distinction which is why the word choice was and is so telling, LCoU.

[inked]

See my priors #3 - !39 (no! not all of those are mine, just the ones in there that are mine!!!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by wizard from Milan

I want to reproduce two phrases from the California court ruling (Judge Kramer)
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional,"
"Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
These sentences are quite obvious and not particularly remarkable to me, but I post them because other people here think otherwise

And I repeat my response to this quote. Does this judge think that the Californians who voted to keep marriage between a consenting adult man and a consenting adult woman didn't think they had a choice to vote how they thought right? That they HAD to vote the way they did because it was "traditional"? That I, to be specific, voted for the Defense of Marriage act because I thought, "hey, 'California has always done so before', so I won't use my reason and bother to think"?!

The arrogance of that judge insults me and millions of other thoughtful, caring Californians, who DO think when they go to vote, and they vote for what they think is best for everyone involved. That judge's statement implies that the voters who voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman don't bother to think, but just vote the way they do "because it's always been this way!". The GALL of that statement! The more I think about it, the madder I get. And this judge is supporting the US?! I thought Americans fought for their independence so that individuals could NOT dictate to us! and here is an individual, this judge, steamrolling over the majority of Californians!

I repeat the challenge - persuade us! If you can't persuade us, then perhaps you're WRONG! *gasp* Don't descend to insults and abusing your power to steamroll over what the citizens of our state have voted for!

[Rían]

I started a thread called "Homosexual Marriage", because katya (the thread starter) said in her opening post that she didn't want to discuss it on this thread

[katya]

Once again, thank you my darling RÃ*an!

The bottom line with the "virgin mary" thing is that there are people somewhere who, regardless of what misunderstanding might have occured, believe she was a virgin forever through everything. I don't think this traditition would've existed if what my mom was trying to say was true.

To any married women here, when you were little did you want to be married? Sometimes when I'm doing the dishes I pretend I'm married to this guy......a guy of no consequence... I don't know, I guess it makes me happy to think I'm a "good wife" because I like him so much, you know? I wonder if it's wrong to think about being a "good wife" and a traditional family structure. I mean, if the girl *wants* it like that. I suppose maybe it *is* sexist and all, but I don't really mind.