Why the definition of marriage matters

[DeletedUser3]

Interesting you bring up dictionaries. I did some research about this sometime back, and historically only one dictionary held to the man/woman definition of marriage. It was only within the past 60 years that some were changed to limit the definition of marriage to that of man/woman and, since then, some where later changed "back" to their original wording, or thereabouts.

The argument about civil unions likewise does not hold water. The problem here is that civil unions do not provide the same federal/state recognition, and rights, as marriage. But there's also the issue here that there is an irrefutable effort to deny same sex unions the same rights as obtained in opposite sex unions. It is not merely the label of "marriage," but the denial of equality. Regardless, your argument infers that "marriage" is exclusive to Abrahamic faiths, and this is patently false. Likewise what is patently false is to claim that Western nations are Judeo-Christian. Europe has moved quite a ways from that and the U.S., even noting the greater percentage being of Abrahamic faith, is still a melting pot of religions and the United States itself is not a theocracy. It is a nation of the people, by the people, for the people. Not quite sure where "church" falls into that statement, but I'm sure you can provide some degree of rationale to justify the stance.

 

[DeletedUser3364]

. I believe the fuss is all about the definition and not about any equality of rights..

You would be wrong.
Restricting the discussion to what amounts to a matter of semantics bypasses the very core of the ongoing debate:
the rights granted by _government_ to adults to freely associate and establish economic and social contracts
which define their health, wealth, life and liberties.

 

[DeletedUser]

I reiterate:

I was specific at the very outset of my post to focus the reader upon a Western or Judeo-Christian orthodoxy/concept of marriage, thereby making discussion about other cultural concepts of marriage quite superfluous - for I believe the original poster was referencing the topic in the Western cultural context.

Well ....??? I do not think I am wrong in assuming that this is the correct platform for this discussion?

As you can see I refer to 'other cultural concepts of marriage', signalling that I do accept there are many different cultures with many different definitions of marriage, having origins not from Abrahamaic faiths.

Subsequently, I consider that to say ...

Regardless, your argument infers that "marriage" is exclusive to Abrahamic faiths, and this is patently false. Likewise what is patently false is to claim that Western nations are Judeo-Christian

... misunderstands the premise of my argument. I do not at all hold that marriage has its origins exclusively in the Abrahamaic faiths or that Western nations are exclusively Judeo-Christian [by population], but I do say, as I have already said, that that is the context in which I believe this question has been put. Is not the original poster asking whether Western democratic nations need to re-define their definition of marriage [in order to accommodate homosexual unions]?? Assuming that is the context, then we must look to all that has influenced the definition of marriage as it is currently defined and understood in Western judicial systems, at Common Law and Statutes Law in Western societies.

We must as well, first understand what laws, if any, are to be challenged, whether it is a case of enforcing existing law or challenging it, or even perhaps a case of enforcing laws without defending them, which becomes a contradiction in itself and is, I believe, what is actually happening here. People, including the Judiciary, are so confused by this matter. To enforce a law you must first defend it and that simply is not happening.

However, I am certain of one thing, to accommodate homosexuality in the definition of marriage then the definition of marriage must by natural progression be re-defined. Is that what the greater public wants? It would be simpler to leave the definition unaltered and adopt a different nomenclature, such as 'civil union'.

Countless laws over time have been enacted with the traditional definition of marriage in mind, subsequently it is imperative that we understand the traditional definition when positing any arguments pertaining to it.

I agree, all the way, that Western democracies have shamefully fallen short in providing equality to same sex couples and gay unions, the reason that I say:

Many heterosexual couples prefer a 'civil union' as opposed to a religious or civil marriage ceremony and have no issues with equality, so if it is done as it should be done for the gay community, so too can gay couples have the same seamless equality.

Meaning, if fit and proper Statutes are to be enacted to embrace gay unions, then they should reflect and enable all that pertains to the Marriage Act and provide exactly the same legal and social access, EQUALLY. That has not yet occurred, but it must and will, with or without the nomenclature of 'marriage'.

 

[DeletedUser]

You would be wrong.
Restricting the discussion to what amounts to a matter of semantics bypasses the very core of the ongoing debate:
the rights granted by _government_ to adults to freely associate and establish economic and social contracts
which define their health, wealth, life and liberties.

Ummm ... well ... I think the original poster has restricted the discussion to semantics by the very nature of his enquiry ... in contemplating the definition of 'marriage'.

 

[DeletedUser3]

... misunderstands the premise of my argument. I do not at all hold that marriage has its origins exclusively in the Abrahamaic faiths or that Western nations are exclusively Judeo-Christian [by population], but I do say, as I have already said, that that is the context in which I believe this question has been put.

Actually, that's exactly what you erroneously argued when you said, "I would have argued that religious prelates have presided over the religious and holy sacrament of marriage for many, many, many eaons, long before civil law became involved with it."

As well, I corrected your statement of, "All Western religious belief systems have held up marriage as a holy rite, as a sacrament for just as many eaons, because for those many aeons no civilian (civil) law existed. There was only religious law."

In these statements, you ignored all other western religions and ignored that civil laws existed separate to religious doctrine "before" they were united in the Torah for the purposes of theocratic governance.

Is not the original poster asking whether Western democratic nations need to re-define their definition of marriage [in order to accommodate homosexual unions]?? Assuming that is the context, then we must look to all that has influenced the definition of marriage as it is currently defined and understood in Western judicial systems, at Common Law and Statutes Law in Western societies.

He asked a general question, not specific to any particular region or nation.

However, I am certain of one thing, to accommodate homosexuality in the definition of marriage then the definition of marriage must by natural progression be re-defined. Is that what the greater public wants? It would be simpler to leave the definition unaltered and adopt a different nomenclature, such as 'civil union'.

The original poster quoted a statement that is misleading. The statement he quoted, and one you have revised in your comment above, is a typical false premise argument stating that the definition of marriage is already defined as between a man and a woman, and that there's no reason to change it.

In truth, the definition of marriage was (and is) originally stated as between two or more people. The changes imposed on the definition of marriage, to define it as between a man and a woman, are regional (state) and recent. I.e., it is the other way around and the author of the article, this physical therapist named B.Gehling, is being deceptive in his presented argument.

We must as well, first understand what laws, if any, are to be challenged, whether it is a case of enforcing existing law or challenging it, or even perhaps a case of enforcing laws without defending them, which becomes a contradiction in itself and is, I believe, what is actually happening here. People, including the Judiciary, are so confused by this matter. To enforce a law you must first defend it and that simply is not happening.

Excuse me, but what law are you referring to? A marriage is a civil agreement, a contract between two or more parties. Is there some sort of law you are stating is not being defended here? Is there a law that says a civil agreement cannot be enacted with the word, "marriage" on top unless it's an agreement between a man and a woman?

No, actually, there is not (or it was only recently enacted and being contested in the courts). At present it is not a law that prevents same-sex marriage, it is activists and politicians (including elected judges) that are blockading the constitutional right for people of the same gender to participate in a particular civil agreement that is openly provided to others.

Countless laws over time have been enacted with the traditional definition of marriage in mind, subsequently it is imperative that we understand the traditional definition when positing any arguments pertaining to it.

Would you like to indicate what these "countless laws enacted" are?

Meaning, if fit and proper Statutes are to be enacted to embrace gay unions, then they should reflect and enable all that pertains to the Marriage Act and provide exactly the same legal and social access, EQUALLY. That has not yet occurred, but it must and will, with or without the nomenclature of 'marriage'.

Agreed, except that the nomenclature of marriage is a civil agreement and a new name does not need to be applied to the same legal contract just because someone is of the same gender.

 

[DeletedUser]

I havnt really followed this thread. But here are my thoughts.
I don't mind gays being married it just cant be a Christian marriage.
In they open minded statement that it is conceived as a sin to allow such to happen.
So maby some kind of state oriented marriage were as you get they wedding but without they priest. So ultimatally marriage is universal and can happen in more ways then one. With each having there own values. But there is no way that say a non straite person could have a Christian marriage and still live by Christian values.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is getting a bit complicated for the casual reader to follow, Hellstromm. I also think it strays off-topic, but here goes: You have challenged this:

I do not at all hold that marriage has its origins exclusively in the Abrahamaic faiths or that Western nations are exclusively Judeo-Christian

Actually, that's exactly what you erroneously argued when you said, "I would have argued that religious prelates have presided over the religious and holy sacrament of marriage for many, many, many eaons, long before civil law became involved with it."

A bit of a quantum leap, don't you think? Religious prelates have presided over marriage for several millennia, but how does that necessarily refer exclusively to Abrahamaic faith? It refers to any and all kinds of marriage rituals where any religious/superstition/pagan rite was performed pertaining to a belief in the supernatural, possibly could even include witch doctors, if you like.

As well, I corrected your statement of, "All Western religious belief systems have held up marriage as a holy rite, as a sacrament for just as many eaons, because for those many aeons no civilian (civil) law existed. There was only religious law."

In these statements, you ignored all other western religions and ignored that civil laws existed separate to religious doctrine "before" they were united in the Torah for the purposes of theocratic governance.

Yes, correct. Ignored, (but not denying they did or do still exist). Why ignored? I am challenging the statements made in earlier posts that 'religion has no place in marriage'. In reply it is only necessary to point out where religion has been significantly involved in the administering and practice of the ritual of marriage. Irrelevant to discuss any marriage rites where religion has not been a factor.

Historically speaking, the Western culture has its origins in the Judeo-Christian ethic, even though it is far more diverse and multi-cultural now. For this very reason it is a fallacy to claim that religion has no place in the Western cultural concept of marriage.

In truth, the definition of marriage was (and is) originally stated as between two or more people. The changes imposed on the definition of marriage, to define it as between a man and a woman, are regional (state) and recent. I.e., it is the other way around and the author of the article, this physical therapist named B.Gehling, is being deceptive in his presented argument.

Don't know which article you are referring to. It would make no sense to post an enquiry about re-defining a past definition, would it? So, it can be safely assumed the original question addresses the current definition at law, as expressed in most Marriage Acts and as accepted by the Parliament of most every Western cultural democracy, which is: : "... between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others", as per Lord Penzance's Judgement handed down through the Westminster system, or adopted from it.


There are countless laws passed which necessarily rely on the definition of marriage. Just Google it - too involved and no space here to iterate a dissertation of proof on that.

... a new name does not need to be applied to the same legal contract just because someone is of the same gender.

The most prominent legal minds in Western democracies are applying themselves to this very task, addressing that very question - to re-define the definition of marriage, or apply a separate nomenclature to same sex marriages. Where countries have enacted legal acceptance of same sex marriages the lawyers are having a field day. (As a consequence of political and public ignorance of the legal repercussions). An astonomically expensive and unnecessary debacle to prove what? What is in a name? (as Shakespeare famously penned). The issue should be firmly focused on equality, not on a tag.

 

[DeletedUser3]

Again with this redefinition tactic. No, the intent at present is defend the "rights" of people to participate in a civil contract regardless of gender. That's what's in U.S. courts. What's in U.S. State bills, of which some were voted in and posed as State laws, has been an effort to redefine the civil contract of marriage as a 'man & woman only' contract. In the courts, these bills have repeatedly been found unconstitutional. So no, once again, no. The redefinition is that of trying to change the definition of a particular civil contract so that it cannot be used for same gender parties.

Now, James Wilde, (aka: Lord Penzance) stated in England, in 1866, "What, then, is the nature of this institution as understood in Christendom?...If it be of common acceptance and existence, it must have some pervading identity and universal basis. I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others."

The British government is actually quite entrenched in its Church dependency, with 26 bishops serving in the House of Lords (Pariliament), the monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the church of England is constitutionally established. So, trying to use them, and a decision posed in 1866 that tied this judge's decision to Christianity, isn't all that strong an argument to be quite honest.

The United States broke from GB in 1776 (90 years before James Wilde's decision), and took with it a supreme distinction, separation of Church & State. Many other countries also never adopted the the positing of the British government on the definition of marriage. So while the Abrahamic religions had significant influence in many things during periods in history, it did not dictate to the whole of Western civilizations through the bulk. Indeed, 1866 for GB constitutes one region for a period of 150 years.

 

[DeletedUser]

As a one time scholar of law that which you write in your last post is more than familiar - is part of my daily reconnoitring. However, the point at task is to reply to the original poster's question regarding the question of amending the definition of "marriage".

I have endeavoured to address this by discussing the currently understood and traditionally accepted definition of marriage in the Western cultural sense and secondly by positing how that definition came to be engaged within Western democracies, whose legal Statutes have been significantly influenced by the Judeo-Christian ethos, thereby bringing me to the conclusion that it is false to claim that religion has no place in marriage. These are the points up for discussion, as I see it.

The reference in the original Judgement to "Christendom", the practice of the swearing of oaths, of Affidavits and of all legal attestations on the Christian Bible, the practice of opening Parliament with the Lord's Prayer, the practice of celebrating holidays over Christmas and Easter, each reminds us of the Judeo-Christian ethos we and our systems of governance and law were forged under, including the traditionally understood and accepted concept of marriage.

It appears we are not on the same page, so probably it is safer to say that I have no argument with most of your last post.

 

[DeletedUser]

As a one time scholar of law that which you write in your last post is more than familiar - is part of my daily reconnoitring. However, the point at task is to reply to the original poster's question regarding the question of amending the definition of "marriage".

I have endeavoured to address this by discussing the currently understood and traditionally accepted definition of marriage in the Western cultural sense and secondly by positing how that definition came to be engaged within Western democracies, whose legal Statutes have been significantly influenced by the Judeo-Christian ethos, thereby bringing me to the conclusion that it is false to claim that religion has no place in marriage. These are the points up for discussion, as I see it.

The reference in the original Judgement to "Christendom", the practice of the swearing of oaths, of Affidavits and of all legal attestations on the Christian Bible, the practice of opening Parliament with the Lord's Prayer, the practice of celebrating holidays over Christmas and Easter, each reminds us of the Judeo-Christian ethos we and our systems of governance and law were forged under, including the traditionally understood and accepted concept of marriage.

It appears we are not on the same page, so probably it is safer to say that I have no argument with most of your last post.

If I recall correctly, the US was not founded on any religious ethos. The fact that many currently are trying to establish the nation as a Christian theocracy doesn't necessarily mean that founding fathers had that intent. Separation of church and state should be one big clue as to the lens that marriage ought to be looked through definitionaly and legislatively.

 

[DeletedUser]

Recall? Maybe you need to study the history. Don't know about any Christian theocratic rule movements in the US.

Yes, powers of State and Church are separated in most Western Democracies, as they should be, but if you go back just a small distance - 20th Century - you will discover that in most Western Democracies the State usurped Church powers in certain areas of Church Law adopting it as Civil Law, such as self-appointed power to conduct marriage services and to grant divorce. These were previously (in Westrern nations) the sole domain of the churches.

 

[DeletedUser]

Recall? Maybe you need to study the history. Don't know about any Christian theocratic rule movements in the US.

Yes, powers of State and Church are separated in most Western Democracies, as they should be, but if you go back just a small distance - 20th Century - you will discover that in most Western Democracies the State usurped Church powers in certain areas of Church Law adopting it as Civil Law, such as self-appointed power to conduct marriage services and to grant divorce. These were previously (in Westrern nations) the sole domain of the churches.

Perhaps you should you should read up a bit more yourself about how the US was not founded on any particular religious ethos, particulary Christianity. The reason why marriage can be granted and should be granted to same-sex couples, is because marriage is within the realm of secular government, and not a discriminatory religion, such as Christianity. That's credit to the foresight of the nation's architects, in this particular regard.

And i could cite numerous examples of States passing legislation based solely on theocratic motivations with the aim to make it the law of the nation, but that's best left for another topic, so as not to derail this one.

 

[DeletedUser3]

The Dutch settlers, the Puritans, and the Pilgrims that settled in America, despite being strongly religious, all deemed marriage to be a civil matter, not a religious one. Same sex marriages existed in Western history, documented as far back as the early Roman Empire, but also occurred during the medieval period. In the United States, after 1776, there were restrictions posed, by the States, upon whites marrying blacks, American Indians, and other non-whites. These were later reversed once "equality" finally sunk in.

So what's the problem here? Are not homosexuals equal?

 

[DeletedUser4823]

The truth of the matter is that God, not the bible states, that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The only reason any of us are here is the relations between one man and one woman. If there were a country that existed solely on the relations between same sex marriages, and that's where you want to live, then create it. Just know that you will cease to exist after one generation. There has to then be a question asked. Do I want to pro-create or self destruct?? Come on people.

 

[DeletedUser]

The truth of the matter is that God, not the bible states, that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The only reason any of us are here is the relations between one man and one woman. If there were a country that existed solely on the relations between same sex marriages, and that's where you want to live, then create it. Just know that you will cease to exist after one generation. There has to then be a question asked. Do I want to pro-create or self destruct?? Come on people.

Whose God? Which God? The US is not beholden to any one particular God, and despite attempts to introduce theocratic legislation or opposition/interpretation to the Constitution, marriage is a civil right, in other words religion is not part of the legal equation since its domain over marriage was superceded by the secular State, and rightfully so, since the country itself doesnt adhere to one or any religious denomination.

Also, same gender partnerships or sexual preference is common among many mammals, and has not led to their self destruction, nor has it impinged on the ability of various species to procreate over hundreds of thousands of years. The argument that it would destroy a species is a fallacious canard. i urge you to look into the facts and re-think your position. There's plenty of biological evidence for you to consider and expand your knowledge with. you can also educate others once you're aware of the facts.

Cheers.

 

[DeletedUser2785]

marriage, a legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring (if any). The universality of marriage within different societies and cultures is attributed to the many basic social and personal functions for which it provides structure, such as sexual gratification and regulation, division of labour between the sexes, economic production and consumption, and satisfaction of personal needs for affection, status, and companionship. Perhaps its strongest function concerns procreation, the care of children and their education and socialization, and regulation of lines of descent. Through the ages, marriages have taken a great number of forms. (See exchange marriage; group marriage; polyandry; polygamy; tree marriage. See also common-law marriage.)

This is from the Encyclopedia Brittannia. I have added some of the bold highlights.

I like this definition because it does point out that different folks may have different definitions of the word. Here in the United States, the legal aspects of marriage are the provence of the individual state. The only national law I personally am aware of is the fact that legal married folks in one state be recognized in another, however, I think that was changed by the DOMA statute. On this and all points I welcome correction.

Since this is the USA, the issue SHOULD be examined as a legal and social issue only. Your beliefs, customs and attitudes are yours to hold as your own. Equal protection under the law should make this a no brainer. I have yet to see an argument against the expansion of marriage to LEGALLY include same sex couples that does not include customs, beliefs or attitudes of those expressing a negative opinion.

As for the social aspect, the only question I would have, would be the effect on children. Many studies have suggested that a male and female role model are needed to best raise a child. However, many children of "single parent" households have gone on to lead well balanced and successful lives. Since legal adoption by same sex partners already exists, and I see no demand for a law requiring a male and a female being REQUIRED to raise a child I will accept that this is not an issue.

In looking up a few things on-line to make myself more aware of various aspects of marriage, I found that several nations have divided the civil and religious aspects of marriage. Couples are free to add their religious ceremony and beliefs to their union, but the legal recognition is the civil aspect of the union. While this change in the law may seem offensive to YOUR PERSONAL beliefs, it does not REQUIRE you to change those beliefs, only to ACCEPT the belief of others.

 

[DeletedUser3]

The truth of the matter is that God, not the bible states, that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The only reason any of us are here is the relations between one man and one woman. If there were a country that existed solely on the relations between same sex marriages, and that's where you want to live, then create it. Just know that you will cease to exist after one generation. There has to then be a question asked. Do I want to pro-create or self destruct?? Come on people.

So then a man and woman should not be allowed to be married to each other if one or both of them is incapable of producing children?

 

[DeletedUser]

lol throw the mice in a maze and watchem run ay laclongquan?

should the definition of marriage change? depends on the variables. if we are talking for the legal purposes within the united states then YES IT SHOULD. as a legal matter marriage is solely an issue of material goods there for the definition should be based solely on reasons pertaining to the same. the gender has no legal bearing on culpability between two parties in a marriage and cannot be so through any rational analysis.

however

Marriage is a coin with two sides and the other side is the spiritual one which is where religion mostly deals with. religion made its way into law back in the middle ages, and then we grew up hit the age of reason and kicked that on its butt for the most part. but in america its still the standard of operation, using religion to guide some of our laws (really it guides our moral compass which guides our laws in turn but thats off topic). in truth when objectively observed, both heterosexual and homosexual lifelong partnerships both can be either negative or positive in a spiritual sense. and by that reason i personally conclude that sex should not be a factor in the spiritual definition of sex.

EDIT: in summation, both in legal and in spiritual sense, the definition of marriage should not include the sex of a person in any way.

Disclaimer: if i offended anyone it was not my intent, cheers

 

[DeletedUser5902]

The definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is only right. Think of all the problems that can evolve from same sex.
Its not safe, its not sane, its not moral, its not just, its not pure, and when you get right down to the roots of the relationship, I highly doubt its even fun.

- - - Updated - - -

So then a man and woman should not be allowed to be married to each other if one or both of them is incapable of producing children?

Not the right idea. Regardless of the ability or inability to have kids, a man and woman can have a deep love and relationship in a way same sex can not.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps you should you should read up a bit more yourself about how the US was not founded on any particular religious ethos, particulary Christianity. The reason why marriage can be granted and should be granted to same-sex couples, is because marriage is within the realm of secular government, and not a discriminatory religion, such as Christianity. That's credit to the foresight of the nation's architects, in this particular regard.

And i could cite numerous examples of States passing legislation based solely on theocratic motivations with the aim to make it the law of the nation, but that's best left for another topic, so as not to derail this one.

Maybe YOU need to read up on our history. Out of 55 congressmen who signed up our independence declaration, 52 were Bible believing Christians and they based our Constitution and first laws on that same Bible

 

[DeletedUser]

the issue up for discussion is a very basic question: what is the significance of marriage? If it is just the formal acceptance of vows to each other (in whatever form the couple choose - regardless of religion) then any consenting beings should be fair game. This would include relatives and even multiple partners if the vows so stipulated. The question would then arise, is there, and should there be regulation regarding these vows. In many states, polygamy is illegal - this is a regulation on those vows.
If the significance of marriage is the creation of a family unit, as opposed to two individuals, then marriage would by definition be restricted to people who can form a family unit. I am not claiming that this excludes any particular relationships, because the debate would just shift to what union can be considered a family unit. The ability to procreate might be suggested as a prerequisite, but as Hellstrom pointed out above

"So then a man and woman should not be allowed to be married to each other if one or both of them is incapable of producing children?"

Perhaps a rejoinder to this would be that since the male gender and female gender together are necessary to procreate, the universe has a biological definition of a family unit regardless of the capabilities of any particular individual.
Alternatively, perhaps the significance of marriage is only the willful inclusion of another into one's family. In other words, familial relationships are created naturally by means of birth. One cannot choose their blood relatives, yet there are certain moral obligations to a relative over and beyond the obligations to all people. Marriage, it could be argued, is a way of artificially including someone into your family. This understanding of marriage would still allow polygamy and same-sex marriage, but would preclude marrying siblings as the relationship is already there and is no longer (purely) willful.
Nevertheless, I would argue that my second route is closer to the truth, and the debate is not really one of the definition of marriage, but the definition of a complete family unit. In which case, perhaps the science of Biology would back up the religious viewpoint on this issue.