Post #333,417
9/30/10 7:37:52 AM
|
So this thread became about who gets to define language...
...with some saying the word "marriage" should be abolished from legal texts and given to the religious to do with as they want; some saying the opposite.
Seems fairly obvious to me which it should be -- and you who propose abandoning marriage to the superstitious haven't thought things through enough:
1) WHICH religion should then get to define marriage? "Oh no, I want all three of my wives to be able to visit me in hospital. Oh, and to get the tax benefits of marriage, of course!"
2) Lovely precedent. So, which special interest groups should get to define which words, so the state must abandon all use of them? Or should this go for JUST the religious and JUST the word "marriage"? Why just them, and not, say, vegetarians or feminists? How would you enforce a ban on re-defining, say, "equal" or "fair" or "lethal"? (Hey, how about "life"...?)
Giving religion a veto on any one thing, is to put it above the law of the land.
That's the wrong way around.
Period.
--
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), same old GMail.
|
Post #333,419
9/30/10 7:42:29 AM
|
1. doesnt matter,
tax benefits would be defined by a contractual registered agreement just like a car loan or mortgage.
2. vegans can fuck off.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,510
10/1/10 5:45:17 AM
|
You're missing the point by a mile, as usual.
1. There IS already such a "contractual registered agreement"; it's been around longer than christianity, and its name has always been "marriage". Look up the English concept "common-law marriage", for instance, and reflect a bit about how old it and the institution it describes might be, compared to christianity among the speakers of English; and then on why it was coined in the first place. (Hint: To describe people who felt they "were married" just like their forebears had always been, without these new-fangled ceremonies the new faith was trying to claim were mandatory, in order to usurp the regulation of the domestic life of the populace as its sole prerogative.)
2. Yup, exactly. And if they can, then so can (other) religious nutcases, too.
--
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), same old GMail.
|
Post #333,436
9/30/10 10:02:54 AM
|
Define "married"
Then define "gender". Or "race". Or "religion".
Lots of people define those things as what they're not. Usually in the form, "I am, you're not." It's hard (probably impossible) to define them as what they are. (I'm sure there are more, these were just the first ones I came up with.)
Point is, there are things the state should have a say in, and things they shouldn't.
Who owes what in taxes? State issue.
Who is allowed to have sex with which other consenting adults? Not a state issue.
What is the legal age for voting? State issue.
How many times a day do you bow toward Mecca? Not a state issue.
Who gets to self-identify as male, female, trans-gendered, married, single, black, white, Asian, Catholic, Baptist ... What difference do any of those things make to the state? You shouldn't tax someone more or less because they're Catholic. You shouldn't grant or deny the right to be an insurance beneficiary because someone is male, female or "other".
"Marriage" is a recognized ceremony in most major religions. If there's one where it isn't I'm not aware of it. That pre-dates any currently-extant law by quite a few centuries.
WHICH religion should then get to define marriage? "Oh no, I want all three of my wives to be able to visit me in hospital. Oh, and to get the tax benefits of marriage, of course!" You seem to be missing a pretty key point here. By reserving the word "marriage" to strictly religious use, the state isn't allowed to base visitation or tax laws on who is or isn't married. That would make as much sense as basing visitation or tax laws on who self-identifies as Baptist. --
Drew
|
Post #333,511
10/1/10 6:10:50 AM
|
Married=Living in a civil union(religious blessing optional)
You seem to be missing a pretty key point here. By reserving the word "marriage" to strictly religious use, the state isn't allowed to base visitation or tax laws on who is or isn't married. That would make as much sense as basing visitation or tax laws on who self-identifies as Baptist. Nope, I didn't actually miss that -- I just disagreed with it, though I expressed that badly. So let me try again:
"Marriage" is a word. Societies run on words; laws are written with words. Language belongs to everybody; letting special interest groups usurp parts of it for their own private use and declaring these parts of language out of bounds for the law is absurd. (Heck, a state couldn't even put a portal paragraph of the form you're advocating, say, "No state or county shall regulate marriage blah blah blah" in its constitution, if it couldn't *use the word* "marriage"!)
"Marriage" is a recognized ceremony in most major religions. If there's one where it isn't I'm not aware of it. That pre-dates any currently-extant law by quite a few centuries. Bullpucky. Any currently-extant law that touches on such basic things as kinship, family, ownership, and inheritance (not to even mention taxation and other more recent concepts) is more recent than organised religion only in terms of the specific statutes; any such law now in force has only replaced an earlier version, going back to, oh, I'd guess Hammurabi's clay tablets, *at least*. (Those tablets are only the oldest *preserved* laws.)
See my reply to the BOx; "common-law marriage" predates at least Christianity among the English-speaking peoples. And from all I've read of ancient Norse, Celts, and Anglo-Saxons, marriage *was* very much a "civil union" to begin with: You took a wife, had a party to celebrate if you could afford it, and didn't necessarily involve any shamans, priests, or druids at all. So if anyone should have to rewrite their texts and make up a new word for anything, it should be the religious nutcases, not civil society.
Basically, even if history weren't on my side (though it is), this comes down to something else: Who gets to decide what. Your idea, that civil society should have to abandon parts of language and let it be usurped by the religious nutcases in order to appease them, in effect amounts to putting religion above the law. That's bass-ackwards. --
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), same old GMail.
|
Post #333,520
10/1/10 9:20:19 AM
|
Dammit, you're making a good point
And I don't have a snappy comeback. Lemme think about this some.
--
Drew
|
Post #334,191
10/13/10 1:33:24 PM
|
Well said. Here's an interesting summary.
History of Marriage in Western Civilization: http://www2.hu-berli...e_in_western.html
The marriage laws and customs of ancient Rome are not easily summarized, because they were rather varied and underwent significant changes in the course of time. Still, without simplifying the issue too much, one may say that marriage and divorce were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval. Early in Roman history, a husband had considerable power over his wife and children, whom he could punish, sell, or even kill as he saw fit. However, eventually women came to enjoy a better legal position and gained more and more control over their lives and property. Thus, in imperial times husband and wife approached marriage as equals. Yet it seems that there was also a decline in marriage and birth rates, since the emperor Augustus found it necessary to pass drastic laws compelling people to marry and penalizing those who remained single. There were several forms of marriage, the first of which (by usus) involved no ceremony at all. It was established simply by the couple's living together for one year. Divorce was just as informal. A more formal kind of marriage (by coemptio) began with a ceremony in front of witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony. Members of the upper classes usually preferred an elaborate ceremony and thus married by confarreatio in front of ten witnesses and a priest. In the case of a divorce, another great ceremony was required. However, all three forms of marriage and divorce were equally valid. All marriages were monogamous. Both men and women usually entered their first marriage in their late teens.
So, as you say, history is on your side. However, fighting against changes in language is very, very difficult. :-(
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #334,216
10/13/10 7:41:02 PM
|
Stuart Chase ceased revolving-in-grave upon this utterance
..but only for a trice (if his ephemeral 'state' is also attuned to the most modrin sources of idiot-bafflegab
{--about bafflegab, even, at times. Is that recursion or just a macro-lens?}
(BTW and anent the ineffable-Squishiness of all [referents] at the roots of any 'language', by-definition:
it has also seemed to me to be the case that, those who digitally-dismiss any concept of the ineffable, as perhaps seeming too perilously close to trivial icons for sky-pixies
-- may also have become inured to that Other aspect of human psych [dunno who said it first; assuredly it predates Snopes's grandfather])
~Language was invented that men may disguise their thoughts from other men.
So while your analyses in this thread are admirable / aka I agree with your conclusions ;^>
they are indeterminant at core issues, say ~~ "what relationship does 'truthiness', in a verbal explication on a topic, bear to
-- that perpetual (if foolish) search for Truth?" About any. thing. ?
We may have met both the Uncertainty and the Pauli Exclusion Principles of staid old physics: and they are Us.
(And if there is some soupçon of Chase's DNA within some spectre.. still.. out there assimilating the mouth-noises of various homo-saps, after all these years?
I do wonder what a now-even-Smarter Chase-wraith would make of the puerile disintegration of any general Respect for Language in 2010,
here in his old stomping grounds.) Oh well -- we couldn't 'ask It', in any event.
Carrion, O Snip of State
|
Post #333,537
10/1/10 1:55:57 PM
|
Each religion can define it for themselves
The idea is that "marriage" becomes a church thing, or a social thing.
Under this idea, you don't get or lose any legal rights by "marriage". You get or lose legal rights by civil partnership.
And as such, how Episcopalians* define "marriage" makes about as much difference as when two kindergartners decide to play wedding.
I actually see this as inevitable in the long run. "Marriage" has too much baggage that is utterly incompatible with how we do government. You can't have privacy and gender equality and then ban gay marriage without also banning marriage (as a legal status) in general. I don't think legal marriage is viable even with gay marriage, but it could be.
You have to remember, the judges that ruled that marriage can't be straight-only were not gay activists, or even particularly liberal. They were just following the law to its inevitable conclusion.
-------------------
* or any other church
---------------------------------------
I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band.
(Tori Amos)
|
Post #333,595
10/2/10 7:14:39 PM
|
Sure-if they also name it for themselves.'Coz "marriage"...
...is already taken: That belongs to *English*, not Religionese. If each religious nutcase sect wants to make up their own meaning for the term, then OK, go ahead -- only, then they can each also make up their own private term to go with their own private meaning. The idea is that "marriage" becomes a church thing, or a social thing. The idea was very good, sure; in fact, it was *almost* exactly correct. But only almost: It gets the last final little detail, namely who gets to define English, and who gets to abandon it, ass-backwards.
Marriage is *already* "a social thing". (Well, what isn't? Most everything is.) The thing is, though, since the Enlightenment, "social things" have been regulated by civil society. No, I'm not saying the weren't regulated before; they've always been. (That's pretty much inherent in the term, "social", isn't it?) I'm only saying that before, in the Dark Ages, "social things" were regulated either by autocratic fiat or by dogmatic superstition, and since the Enlightenment, they've been brought into the light of public scrutiny and (more-or-less) democratically-wrought, rationally-based, civil(ised!) Law.
Abdicating the power to define the very language your laws are written in, the language which more or less *is* your whole society, to the religious -- that is to roll all that progress right back into the Dark Ages.
(Sheesh, it makes one shiver with fear of the dark that you guys can't see that, it's so obvious. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised: It's the "boil a frog by putting him in the kettle while it's cold" phenomenon. Your United States have been slowly but inexorably religiofied for so long, you have a hard time seeing how close they are to finally becoming the United States of Christian Talebania.) --
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), same old GMail.
|
Post #334,185
10/13/10 11:31:02 AM
|
FWIW, this Xian agrees with me
For too long, the debate around same-sex unions has hinged on a sacrament exercised by the state, not the church, and the church has been all too willing to go along and get along, piping up here and there like a harpy polarizing the debate on both sides with different interpretations of Scripture. But I do not want a senator to offer me the bread and wine on Sunday. I do not want a governor to sprinkle water on my childrenÂs heads for baptism. I do not want the mayor to put her hands on my head in confirmation.
Why would I want the state to have any say in my marriage?
http://unorthodoxolo...o-be-married.html--
Drew
|
Post #334,195
10/13/10 2:02:46 PM
|
I'm dealing with this right now
I'll have both a rabbi and a priest at my wedding, and neither are actually required. They are more for the family members than us.
|
Post #334,198
10/13/10 2:44:56 PM
|
I can picture the joke now
there was a priest, a rabbi and box at this party
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #334,255
10/14/10 11:16:19 AM
|
It writes itself.
Drove for 2 hours in traffic with my TL.
Late by 30 minutes. Starbucks.
We phone tagged during the ride, so he wasn't too worried.
He didn't say please hurry, he said take your time and be careful.
We grab some coffee and sit down with him.
Tall. Skinny. Very little hair. Old. How old? Glance, and
could be an old 50 or a young 60. He's over 70.
Reserved smiles, I'm on best behavior.
So, tell me about yourself? He asks specific deep probing questions,
rips right into you.
Gently.
Offers up any information we'd like on him.
Asks what we feel about religion. TL goes 1st. Warm gentle loving
things said, with a bit of annoyance concerning the hierarchy.
He gently agrees. Asks about my experiences and beliefs.
Uh oh. Decision time. TL is holding my hand, and gives a squeeze.
I'm supposed to be nice.
But he ASKED! And he really seems to want to know. Oh well, if we lose
him due to a conflict with me, such is life. I'll find another one
and shutup during the next interview. I have time.
My heart starts to pump. The adrenaline kicks in. Fuck! Physical
fight or flight response. Cut that shit out. Oh well, roll with it.
I explained to him that almost all of my religious conversations are
pretty much spent pointing out contradictions and obvious bullshit,
and they almost always ended bad, so it really wasn't something I
typically did, especially with a professional representative of the
religion.
Him: Go for it.
Sigh.
So father, do you know anything about Cherry Hill, NJ?
Him: Sure, that's a heavily Jewish area.
Me: Hmm, well. Do you know the Down's Farm area?
No? That's ok. When I was 3 my father tried to buy a house
there. They told him he was not allowed, that he needed to go
across the street to Woodcrest.
So he did.
That pretty much informs my early world view on the issue.
Not that I adhere to "mine". The reason you guys are here
are for the old folk, not us.
I consider ANY revealed truth religion, revealed to someone else, as
nothing more than a way to control the masses. I came up with a pretty
good phrase, almost all the words starting with 'm', but didn't write it
down. I should have. He referred to it later.
And as far as the prayers you say during the ceremony, no war cries.
Note: These points were made over about a 3 minute one sided conversation,
as I hit various issues (that you may have seen me post about). I didn't
go for the pedophile one, that would be too easy, and this was a personal
experience conversation, not a generic "you guys suck" one.
Him: No war cries? I assure you (blah blah)
Me: (as I cut him off): No, you need to understand what my crazy
paranoid brain considers war cries. Any time I hear Christians praying
for peace, I'm trying to figure out who they are at war with, and just
how many Jews are going to die as part of the process.
At this point my TL is trying not to glare at me. She's doing a
pretty good job of maintaining a poker face, and then leaning
in and nodding sadly at me, trying to "emote" to the priest that
I'm damaged goods but I'm still marriageable.
The priest nods. And smiles.
And then blows me away.
His life experience easily qualifies him to understand my point of
view, and he partially embraces it. As he said, it's not just paranoia.
He'll do.
Actually, he's far better than "do". Hopefully he'll stay for
the whole party and can share some stories. I'm waiting for his
book, I might have access to it a bit before physical publication.
So now we have a tag team, the rabbi and the priest.
And if you like, a box.
|
