-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
Why the definition of marriage matters
- Thread starter *Arturis*
- Start date
- Status
DeletedUser
Cherry picking facts to start off with? Marriage has never been defined exclusively as one woman and one man though out the eons. The definition in this country has fluxed many times, mostly though discussion of bigamy and interracial issues, so it's never been "set it stone" here. Polygamy, Polyandry, Bigamy, all accepted in many cultures at many times, including though many biblical passages. Such as when one man's brother dies, the other man takes his wife as his own...even if he has another wife. This doesn't even include the multitude of concubines that were permissible, or other relationships that existed.
Arguing this from a faulty understanding of history, entrenched in twisted puritanical arguments, is worthless. Worse, it's bigoted and violates the rights of not only the GLBTQ community, but those who can't have children by making a distinction that it is for procreation (alluded to here and expressed publicly by many politicians and right-wing theists).
The only thing that matters is that people who chose to enter a contract (Marriage) honor it. Faithfully, and honestly, and to the best of their ability. The rest of us should keep our long noses out of their business.
Arguing this from a faulty understanding of history, entrenched in twisted puritanical arguments, is worthless. Worse, it's bigoted and violates the rights of not only the GLBTQ community, but those who can't have children by making a distinction that it is for procreation (alluded to here and expressed publicly by many politicians and right-wing theists).
The only thing that matters is that people who chose to enter a contract (Marriage) honor it. Faithfully, and honestly, and to the best of their ability. The rest of us should keep our long noses out of their business.
DeletedUser
Same gender partners ought to be free to be as miserable, i mean married, as their equal but opposite gender counterparts.
Besides, religions should get out of the business and legalities of marriage. It's a civil and secular matter at the end of the day, that requires the registration and recognition of the 'state' to carry the weight that religion cannot carry.
To tell you the truth....'marriage' itself is just a legal label, and laws ought not to be filtered through puritanical points of view.
Besides, religions should get out of the business and legalities of marriage. It's a civil and secular matter at the end of the day, that requires the registration and recognition of the 'state' to carry the weight that religion cannot carry.
To tell you the truth....'marriage' itself is just a legal label, and laws ought not to be filtered through puritanical points of view.
DeletedUser34
The definition as posted below has been given by NOT the bible, but rather religion. In truth it is a business agreement. It doesn't matter who has it, nor does it have to be done in a church. It was a business agreement IN the bible. Granted, the bible discusses only male/female, but that is besides the point, it doesn't LIMIT the qualifications OF marriage to only one man one woman. (Now I am aware that this comment will tip off a whole new one about homosexuality and the bible, and I am game if anyone is feeling froggy, but I might surprise you
)On a bunny trail, I'd like to point out that I find the politicians who passed this law holding lofty "biblical" views over the heads of others quite funny, considering most of them have mistresses or more so, one nighters on occasion. AND I find the church backing these politicians with these views highly hypocritical considering that half of them break 90% of the rest of the perceived rules in the bible. The irony fills me with chuckles (and tears).
Oh and so nobody figures this is Christian bashing...don't bother, my mindset is very much as I was told yesterday, "illogical" and I fall under that category that lives in the religious element.
DeletedUser3422
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle. Consenting adults should be allowed freedom of association, be it federal wage laws, gay marriage, private labor unions or polygamy. I know liberty scares many of you to death. If the Ds and Rs got together on taking away our liberty, we would look like North Korea.
DeletedUser
You're a Libertarian then?
Because, they talk a good game, but all I see is talk about freedom on one side, and the right to be free to discriminate others on another side. Think freedom to discriminate based on race by private business in a Libertarian utopia.
Much rather not live in that world.
DeletedUser3422
Yawn, nothing like busting out a strawman and a race card at the same time.
DeletedUser
So you're not a Libertarian, and Libertarianism doesn't allow for racial segregating at a private business??
I appreciate the attempt to start a game of dodgeball though
DeletedUser34
You guys going to reduce yourselves to one liners back and forth with nothing but insults? *yawn*
That makes what could be a decent topic rather "meh". Suck it up and give others something to read and reply to that might have gotten involved, it there was something worth responding to.
That makes what could be a decent topic rather "meh". Suck it up and give others something to read and reply to that might have gotten involved, it there was something worth responding to.
DeletedUser
I'm not trying to insult him, I'm simply trying to understand whether or not he's a libertarian, and how he squares that circle with some of the libertarian movement's tenets, when it comes not only to same-sex marriage, but also to things such as racial discrimination.
Better to know where a person is coming from than to assume, right?
DeletedUser3
Meh, about 20 years ago the Libertarian party was a good party, with good people pushing for the right things but, about 10-15 years ago, it was invaded by rejected right-wing Republicans and underwent a fundamental shift. No longer such a good party. Their views on such things as equality took a conservative and corporate lean. Unfortunate really, but something for a different discussion.
Now, lots of good statements in this thread and it looks like all the participants agree, that marriage is a civil agreement, a legal contract, and not a religion-based contract. The confusion for many is that the Abrahamic religions were based on the Jewish writings, which comprised of multiple books, some of which focused on "law." In ancient times, theocracy was common and thus nations were run by religious tenets. Some of the Judeo books were essentially left-overs from Judeo-based theocratic governments.
When other Abrahamic religions were birthed, they adopted vestiges of ancient theocracies and thus some came to the "erroneous assumption" that marriage was a religious tenet. In truth, it is no more a religious tenet than any other contract between two or more parties.
Now, lots of good statements in this thread and it looks like all the participants agree, that marriage is a civil agreement, a legal contract, and not a religion-based contract. The confusion for many is that the Abrahamic religions were based on the Jewish writings, which comprised of multiple books, some of which focused on "law." In ancient times, theocracy was common and thus nations were run by religious tenets. Some of the Judeo books were essentially left-overs from Judeo-based theocratic governments.
When other Abrahamic religions were birthed, they adopted vestiges of ancient theocracies and thus some came to the "erroneous assumption" that marriage was a religious tenet. In truth, it is no more a religious tenet than any other contract between two or more parties.
DeletedUser
^ Well stated.
Religion, particularly Judeo-Christian religions as they're the predominant religions of North America, have about as much place in the modern legal basis for/of marriage as they do in a modern science class.
Religion, particularly Judeo-Christian religions as they're the predominant religions of North America, have about as much place in the modern legal basis for/of marriage as they do in a modern science class.
DeletedUser3422
I have not yet voted for a Libertarian, Ds, Rs and Indies, yes. Basically I do not agree with every plank of any one party. My views tend not to change depending on who won an election but they have changed on different issues with the passage of time. I would like for citizens to have open discussions about social issues without being labeled for having an unpopular view. Freedom of speech is an amazing liberty even though I find some rhetoric hurtful and downright wrong. Freedom of association is another awesome liberty even though I find some groups disturbing. If a business wants to hire only Asians, I might not agree but I think the business should be able to do it and reap the consequences, both good and bad. I feel the same way about marriage, I might not agree with polygamy but I think consenting adults should have that liberty. When it comes to gay marriage, I do not want to marry someone of the same sex but I think that option should be legal. My views of the religious aspect concerning GM are definitely not popular at the church I am a member of. If a church chooses not to perform GM ceremonies, I might not agree but they should have the freedom not to. I am in conflict with some issues, like should police departments or schools make hiring decisions based on race. One side I think they should hire the most qualified applicants, on the other side I can understand the benefits of having Asian officers in neighborhoods with high Asian population and on the third side being as diverse as possible can have huge benefits to the community. Now a government agency to have a (pick a race) only policy is just plain wrong. One of the most valuable aspects of my time in the military was working with and for people from all over, our strength as a country does come from us being a melting pot and that brings up a great topic on immigration. My views on immigration have changed in part by having a dialog with a self professed Liberal.
DeletedUser
Fair enough. I respect your thoughts and thank you for your reply. It's much easier to know where you're coming from when I get to know your general thoughts on politics, freedoms, etc. Makes it much easier to know what motivates you.
In many circumstances and areas, I agree fully with what you've written. And in many ways, these are indeed Libertarian tenets....well, the old Libertarian one, you know before the dejected right-wing Ayn Randian conservative hijacked the Libertarian movement. Philosophically I very much support the freedoms you do hold dear. Freedom of speech, of association, to practice a personal religion, or from other people's personal religions, of movement, from unnecessary search and seizure, from state oppression, to marry, to peace and reasonable safety, etc....
But, like with freedoms for marriage, hiring practices, movement, religion, speech, etc, there have to be ways to regulate certain aspects of it, that the Libertarian movement doesn't want...which could have bad consequences. Remember the saying that too much of a good thing is bad? Well, as it goes with virtually everything, the same applies to 'freedom'...which is why we don't have the freedom to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater when there isn't one, or we're restricted in owning chemical and biological weaponry, etc...are reasonable limits on certain freedoms, which I hope you'd see the sense off, but that's for another discussion, as you've stated.
You already seem to support the freedom to marry those of the same gender or opposite gender, based on one's sexual orientation, so I suppose we both agree on that. I also agree that if a certain religion and it house of worship doesn't want to marry same sex couples, they have the right to not do so...just as those people and others have the right to leave that religion for their clutching to old intolerances/ignorances. Religions are a business anyways, I think that's plain to see to most intelligent people, so the continued loss of 'customers' because of their intolerant product will continue to drive the customer base away. Talk about reaping what you sow, eh? lol.
Now, how do you feel about the U.N.?? LOL, just joking.
DeletedUser3
Which is why there are actually penalties for harmful speech, as it harms others.
Which is why there are laws against unlawful assembly, as it has the potential to harm others.
Which is why there are penalties associated with imposing prejudicial hiring practices, because it harms others.
Which is why there should be no restrictions imposed upon two (or more) consenting adults, because no harm comes to others.
Liberty --- without harm.
DeletedUser
Same Sex Marriage --- the liberty to give up your freedom like all other married couples.
DeletedUser
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 (its first involvement being as recent as the 20th Century in Western Cultures). 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 Western Cultures from ancient times, throughout history, through the Dark Ages and Mediaeval times there was Christian Law, so much so that the Monarchs throughout Europe and the West paid homage to the Pope in Rome as their Head of State. These same Western Monarchs were ordained as the Heads of the [Catholic] Church in their own Country, in their Provinces and their Colonies, with each acknowledging the Papacy as supreme ruler over their sovereignty.
That was the case right up until the mid 16th Century; up until King Henry the VIII of England broke with Rome and the Catholic orthodoxy (the only Christian Church that had existed up until that point), and declared himself the Head of a new Christian Church, the Anglican Church of England with no Papal supremacy. (The Pope, England's Lord Chancellor and the Archbishop of Canterbury - highest offices in the land beneath the Monarch - all disagreed with Henry, denying him the right to divorce his wife to marry another woman. He went on to marry five more.)
To claim that religion has no place in marriage is clearly inaccurate and a gross distortion of historical fact, of our cultural heritage, of historical beginnings, of our historical heritage and all that our Western culture once revolved around. Perhaps the writers mean that religion has no place in marriage for them personally.
Sure, changes will come and go, but to fly in the face of historical fact and current culture is not helpful. Religion, together with its religious representatives of the Western Christian God, has been the primary guardian of all matters moral, primarily overseeing that chaste and appropriate moral values and vows are reflected in the Western institution of marriage and practised within the family unit, including presiding over the sacramental rite of marriage itself. Religious prelates have done so for several millennia, dating right back to the earliest written record known to man, approx. 2,000 BCE.
The definition, " ... between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others ..." was penned by
In Western Cultures from ancient times, throughout history, through the Dark Ages and Mediaeval times there was Christian Law, so much so that the Monarchs throughout Europe and the West paid homage to the Pope in Rome as their Head of State. These same Western Monarchs were ordained as the Heads of the [Catholic] Church in their own Country, in their Provinces and their Colonies, with each acknowledging the Papacy as supreme ruler over their sovereignty.
That was the case right up until the mid 16th Century; up until King Henry the VIII of England broke with Rome and the Catholic orthodoxy (the only Christian Church that had existed up until that point), and declared himself the Head of a new Christian Church, the Anglican Church of England with no Papal supremacy. (The Pope, England's Lord Chancellor and the Archbishop of Canterbury - highest offices in the land beneath the Monarch - all disagreed with Henry, denying him the right to divorce his wife to marry another woman. He went on to marry five more.)
To claim that religion has no place in marriage is clearly inaccurate and a gross distortion of historical fact, of our cultural heritage, of historical beginnings, of our historical heritage and all that our Western culture once revolved around. Perhaps the writers mean that religion has no place in marriage for them personally.
Sure, changes will come and go, but to fly in the face of historical fact and current culture is not helpful. Religion, together with its religious representatives of the Western Christian God, has been the primary guardian of all matters moral, primarily overseeing that chaste and appropriate moral values and vows are reflected in the Western institution of marriage and practised within the family unit, including presiding over the sacramental rite of marriage itself. Religious prelates have done so for several millennia, dating right back to the earliest written record known to man, approx. 2,000 BCE.
The definition, " ... between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others ..." was penned by
The Right Honourable, The Lord Penzance, QC
and recorded and accepted as both Common, Civil and Legislative Law by the English Justice System in the mid 1800's, which definition every Western nation has either inherited (as an English Colony) or accepted and expressed it similarly.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser3364
The claim is -NOT- that Religion has no place in Marriage,
but rather that religion has no place in marriage _as it pertains to Civil Law_.
Unless you are arguing for the establishment of a theocracy (which is a different thread, yes?)
Historical precedent is just that: Historical.
What degree of sanctity is brought to (or left from) a marriage by religious conviction and vow
simply has nothing to do with the requirements of a marriage as practiced within the legal jurisprudence of civil society.
Far more Importantly: legal jurisprudence of civil society has absolutely no right or ability to sanction
the degree of sanctity brought to marriage by religious conviction and vow. The sword cuts both ways.
IIRC, there exist some 1100+ benefits and responsibilities defined by law for the institution of marriage as it is understood by civil society.
The current seperate-and-unequal application of Law based on preference of religious interpretation is causing very real and lasting damage, harm, and cruelty.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/27/us/new-york-doma-windsor
There truly exists only two non-hypocritical choices:
Either remove the concept of marriage entirely from the Law, and return it to the religious obligation that is its antecedent,
or recognize that religious commitment and civil contract exist in parallel,
and open the civil contract to all that desire it (just as the religious commitment already stands).
http://preview.hrc.org/issues/5478.htm
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/...ts-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/from-why-marriage-matters-appendix-b-by-evan-wolfson
but rather that religion has no place in marriage _as it pertains to Civil Law_.
Unless you are arguing for the establishment of a theocracy (which is a different thread, yes?)
Historical precedent is just that: Historical.
What degree of sanctity is brought to (or left from) a marriage by religious conviction and vow
simply has nothing to do with the requirements of a marriage as practiced within the legal jurisprudence of civil society.
Far more Importantly: legal jurisprudence of civil society has absolutely no right or ability to sanction
the degree of sanctity brought to marriage by religious conviction and vow. The sword cuts both ways.
IIRC, there exist some 1100+ benefits and responsibilities defined by law for the institution of marriage as it is understood by civil society.
The current seperate-and-unequal application of Law based on preference of religious interpretation is causing very real and lasting damage, harm, and cruelty.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/27/us/new-york-doma-windsor
There truly exists only two non-hypocritical choices:
Either remove the concept of marriage entirely from the Law, and return it to the religious obligation that is its antecedent,
or recognize that religious commitment and civil contract exist in parallel,
and open the civil contract to all that desire it (just as the religious commitment already stands).
http://preview.hrc.org/issues/5478.htm
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/...ts-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/from-why-marriage-matters-appendix-b-by-evan-wolfson
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser3
Dingeroo, I'll leave your comments open for debate, as it pertains to the topic. I would like to pose a few corrections:
Recorded History dates back to 3200 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia's marriage laws were essentially property laws. The civil contract of owning a slave differed only slightly from that of owning a wife. In fact, the Mesopotamian equivalence to the word, Husband, translated to "owner of wife." So the answer is no, it was not a religious sacrament. ~ http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=58
As previously stated, the confusion begins with a failure to identify the history and functionings of judeo-christian theocracies. For example, when other religions arose from the conflicts within Judaism, in that the Israelite tribes were previously governed by Judges, and when they merged to create the Kingdom of Israel, they codified and collated their laws (these were initially not laws of God, but of man). Judaism consists of many books, each addressing governance, agriculture, health, civil law, criminal, and religion. When religions "broke" from Judaism, such as the Christianity and later Muslim religions, they took with them "parts" of various books from Judaism. There are still divergences from Judaism, some of which eschewing ancient rules that existed to protect health, such as eating pork. Those particular rules no longer apply in countries where trichinosis is under control. Indeed, many ancient rules, handed down over the ages, no longer apply because of the knowledge and advances we have gained over time. But still, there are some who adhere to those rules because they have been brought up with the belief that the laws of ancient man and the beliefs in God are one and the same.
Returning to the argument that marriage is a sacrament, some Jewish denominations recognize same-sex marriage and emphasize it is about the bond between two people, irregardless of physical accouterments. Same for some Christian denominations. Indeed, what would be the answer for a hardliner on such issues as a woman or man not being able to procreate, or that of a hermaphrodite, someone born with both male & female organs? Or of those who are androgynous, or display one more more characteristics of each gender? While it is easy to claim male & female, it is disingenuous to the reality of nature and the millions of cases in which gender is not so firmly defined.
In many other places in the world, marriage was a civil contract, not a religious one, and many places still do not associate marriage with religion. Covering a few other religions and beliefs, we can touch upon Confucianism which, although more a philosophy than a religion, nonetheless governs peoples actions as would a religion and takes upon the role of unifying clans (families). For the purpose of growing the clan, couples who are not able to have children are not desired (this would include those who cannot procreate due to infertility). But, this does not preclude marriage, only makes it not helpful as a utility for uniting clans.
Then there is Taoism, which identifies our Western flaw of divorcing spirituality from sexuality. In this respect, the goal is to embrace sex and sexuality as something that brings us happiness and that being with the person you wish to be with serves to fulfill. Rules imposed to restrict two (or more) people from being together is anathema to Taoism.
And let's return to Christianity, wherein Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a retired Anglican bishop and rights activist, argued that nobody is the stepchild of God and that persecuting and/or excluding any of God's children is blasphemy. This goes hand in hand with not judging others, as stated in the Bible under many verses.
Recorded History dates back to 3200 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia's marriage laws were essentially property laws. The civil contract of owning a slave differed only slightly from that of owning a wife. In fact, the Mesopotamian equivalence to the word, Husband, translated to "owner of wife." So the answer is no, it was not a religious sacrament. ~ http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=58
As previously stated, the confusion begins with a failure to identify the history and functionings of judeo-christian theocracies. For example, when other religions arose from the conflicts within Judaism, in that the Israelite tribes were previously governed by Judges, and when they merged to create the Kingdom of Israel, they codified and collated their laws (these were initially not laws of God, but of man). Judaism consists of many books, each addressing governance, agriculture, health, civil law, criminal, and religion. When religions "broke" from Judaism, such as the Christianity and later Muslim religions, they took with them "parts" of various books from Judaism. There are still divergences from Judaism, some of which eschewing ancient rules that existed to protect health, such as eating pork. Those particular rules no longer apply in countries where trichinosis is under control. Indeed, many ancient rules, handed down over the ages, no longer apply because of the knowledge and advances we have gained over time. But still, there are some who adhere to those rules because they have been brought up with the belief that the laws of ancient man and the beliefs in God are one and the same.
Returning to the argument that marriage is a sacrament, some Jewish denominations recognize same-sex marriage and emphasize it is about the bond between two people, irregardless of physical accouterments. Same for some Christian denominations. Indeed, what would be the answer for a hardliner on such issues as a woman or man not being able to procreate, or that of a hermaphrodite, someone born with both male & female organs? Or of those who are androgynous, or display one more more characteristics of each gender? While it is easy to claim male & female, it is disingenuous to the reality of nature and the millions of cases in which gender is not so firmly defined.
In many other places in the world, marriage was a civil contract, not a religious one, and many places still do not associate marriage with religion. Covering a few other religions and beliefs, we can touch upon Confucianism which, although more a philosophy than a religion, nonetheless governs peoples actions as would a religion and takes upon the role of unifying clans (families). For the purpose of growing the clan, couples who are not able to have children are not desired (this would include those who cannot procreate due to infertility). But, this does not preclude marriage, only makes it not helpful as a utility for uniting clans.
Then there is Taoism, which identifies our Western flaw of divorcing spirituality from sexuality. In this respect, the goal is to embrace sex and sexuality as something that brings us happiness and that being with the person you wish to be with serves to fulfill. Rules imposed to restrict two (or more) people from being together is anathema to Taoism.
And let's return to Christianity, wherein Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a retired Anglican bishop and rights activist, argued that nobody is the stepchild of God and that persecuting and/or excluding any of God's children is blasphemy. This goes hand in hand with not judging others, as stated in the Bible under many verses.
DeletedUser
The topic poses the question, should the definition of marriage be changed to something else.
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.
Bringing religion into the discussion could be argued to be off topic, but paradoxically, it is very difficult to ignore it when discussing the Western Judeo-Christian cultural concept of marriage, because it is based upon the very combination of those two religious and cultural inheritances from Abrahamaic Law. For this reason people will always either complain about or praise the impact of religion upon the Western institution of marriage, just as we have seen above, just as Henry VIII did also, when it failed to suit his desires, and which my post specifically addresses - that is to say that for many in the community the two cannot be considered separately and to claim, as some have, that religion has no place in marriage demonstrates an ignorance of understanding of the basic concept. Agreed, it has no place in the civil ceremony, for those who chose to have no religious adherences.
The impact of religion upon the Western cultural experience of and traditional understanding of marriage, upon the accepted definition of it and upon the Western cultural public's concept of it remains a significant and defining factor, the reason Western Democratic Marriage Acts reflect that very Judeo-Christian concept in their definition. It remains so for all of the reasons covered in my previous post. For many, the institution of marriage will always have a religious context, the reason they adopt the traditional path of calling upon a member of the clergy to administer their nuptials. That is why the Churches cater for them and the State civil legislation provides for those who disassociate it from any belief system. That is how it should be. So what is the argument about?
The task posed by gays should not be to ask the greater public to remove a long-standing traditional definition, to remove historical reference and ancient lexical origins and re-write the definitions of time honoured understandings. It should instead be to ask the greater public to partake equally in social, legal and civil acceptance of their union on equal grounds, without the necessity of hijacking a definition which many cannot reconcile to mean or include homosexuality, simply because it never has. It is somewhat like asking the greater public to remove 'Gents' or 'Men' from the male ablution block and 'Ladies' or 'women' from the female ablution block and to redefine them to refer to something which neither has previously been associated with. The lexical definition of the word "marriage" has never been understood to include homosexuality, so the question really in our minds should be:
Do we care, do we want, do we mind, does it matter if we do re-write our dictionaries, our Marriage Acts, our Christian prayer books, our Bibles, our Catechisms our legal definitions, our de facto laws, etc. etc. to suddenly include homosexuality in the definition of the word marriage wherever it appears. [Having a legal background, believe me, this presents a gargantuan task.] Some argue it is a question of equality if we do not. Well, that is simply a furphy. 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.
In answer to the original post ... I think marriage should not be re-defined to describe something which is similar, yet different from the original definition as understood by the majority. When the press reports that the majority has no objection to gay marriages, the majority has failed the majority by virtue of failing to discern the difference between accepting gay civil unions and referring to them as such, as opposed to calling these 'marriages'. I believe the fuss is all about the definition and not about any equality of rights. Congratulations, LacLongQuan [OP], for seeing the issue for what it is and for crystallising it into a single question.
Has the gay community the right to demand changes to our lexical definitions on demand, to suit them, so that suddenly something which has always been understood to mean one thing, no longer describes or delineates an understood difference and becomes blurred to mean the same as something which it really is not? Give gay unions total and absolute equal rights, equal legal recognition, equal social and cultural acceptance, but is it really necessary to give them a word which describes something which may be similar but nevertheless is different.
Why do we have such words as 'gay', 'homosexual', 'lesbian', 'heterosexual'? If they were the same there would be no need to differentiate, would there? To be different should not correlate to mean unequal.
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.
Bringing religion into the discussion could be argued to be off topic, but paradoxically, it is very difficult to ignore it when discussing the Western Judeo-Christian cultural concept of marriage, because it is based upon the very combination of those two religious and cultural inheritances from Abrahamaic Law. For this reason people will always either complain about or praise the impact of religion upon the Western institution of marriage, just as we have seen above, just as Henry VIII did also, when it failed to suit his desires, and which my post specifically addresses - that is to say that for many in the community the two cannot be considered separately and to claim, as some have, that religion has no place in marriage demonstrates an ignorance of understanding of the basic concept. Agreed, it has no place in the civil ceremony, for those who chose to have no religious adherences.
The impact of religion upon the Western cultural experience of and traditional understanding of marriage, upon the accepted definition of it and upon the Western cultural public's concept of it remains a significant and defining factor, the reason Western Democratic Marriage Acts reflect that very Judeo-Christian concept in their definition. It remains so for all of the reasons covered in my previous post. For many, the institution of marriage will always have a religious context, the reason they adopt the traditional path of calling upon a member of the clergy to administer their nuptials. That is why the Churches cater for them and the State civil legislation provides for those who disassociate it from any belief system. That is how it should be. So what is the argument about?
The task posed by gays should not be to ask the greater public to remove a long-standing traditional definition, to remove historical reference and ancient lexical origins and re-write the definitions of time honoured understandings. It should instead be to ask the greater public to partake equally in social, legal and civil acceptance of their union on equal grounds, without the necessity of hijacking a definition which many cannot reconcile to mean or include homosexuality, simply because it never has. It is somewhat like asking the greater public to remove 'Gents' or 'Men' from the male ablution block and 'Ladies' or 'women' from the female ablution block and to redefine them to refer to something which neither has previously been associated with. The lexical definition of the word "marriage" has never been understood to include homosexuality, so the question really in our minds should be:
Do we care, do we want, do we mind, does it matter if we do re-write our dictionaries, our Marriage Acts, our Christian prayer books, our Bibles, our Catechisms our legal definitions, our de facto laws, etc. etc. to suddenly include homosexuality in the definition of the word marriage wherever it appears. [Having a legal background, believe me, this presents a gargantuan task.] Some argue it is a question of equality if we do not. Well, that is simply a furphy. 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.
In answer to the original post ... I think marriage should not be re-defined to describe something which is similar, yet different from the original definition as understood by the majority. When the press reports that the majority has no objection to gay marriages, the majority has failed the majority by virtue of failing to discern the difference between accepting gay civil unions and referring to them as such, as opposed to calling these 'marriages'. I believe the fuss is all about the definition and not about any equality of rights. Congratulations, LacLongQuan [OP], for seeing the issue for what it is and for crystallising it into a single question.
Has the gay community the right to demand changes to our lexical definitions on demand, to suit them, so that suddenly something which has always been understood to mean one thing, no longer describes or delineates an understood difference and becomes blurred to mean the same as something which it really is not? Give gay unions total and absolute equal rights, equal legal recognition, equal social and cultural acceptance, but is it really necessary to give them a word which describes something which may be similar but nevertheless is different.
Why do we have such words as 'gay', 'homosexual', 'lesbian', 'heterosexual'? If they were the same there would be no need to differentiate, would there? To be different should not correlate to mean unequal.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status