North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[Senator Clay Davis]

Also, to the argument thats what the definition has been forever or thats the way its always been blah blah blah....well remember, at one point the entire world though the Earth was flat. History evolves, thoughts and attitudes change, and what was one thought of as the truth, fact or something similar is now totally different. Of course there are still people who think the world is flat, 6,000 years old and and we rode dinasaurs once, but crazy people interestingly have also been around about as long as history.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I understand the idea that they want to "save" non-believers, but why can't they just let it go? If someone wants to burn in hell for being gay, why is it their problem?

If someone's life is in peril and you can save them with no risk to yourself, aren't you morally obligated to act? Especially if you hold the Golden Rule to be valid? Even moreso when it's not a life, but the eternal fate of someone's soul?

If not morally obligated, then at the very least highly motivated by compassion for others.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Hilch

Nope. That might be your definition but history tells us a different story. Again your personal belief may be that it's a man and a women but mariage hasn't always been that way.

It was our western, North American, European definition, until recently, when it was brought into question by some who went looking anywhere they could to change that definition. As the discussion has been regarding North Carolina, and North America in general, I felt safe to use that as the basis for my definition.

[MarchHare]

I understand the idea that they want to "save" non-believers, but why can't they just let it go? If someone wants to burn in hell for being gay, why is it their problem?

I don't want to speak for Textcritic, but you might be surprised to learn that many evangelical Christians honestly believe that the rest of the world is completely clueless about Jesus and the tenets of Christianity (hence their endless crusades to "spread the good news"). To them, homosexuals aren't making a choice "to burn in hell for being gay". Rather, they see gay people as misguided souls who don't know Jesus and aren't even aware of the consequences of their actions, hence their need to be "saved".

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Knalus

It was our western, North American, European definition, until recently, when it was brought into question by some who went looking anywhere they could to change that definition. As the discussion has been regarding North Carolina, and North America in general, I felt safe to use that as the basis for my definition.

Uhhh, huh? So you're saying people want to destroy the traditional definition of marriage because....because why exactly?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Knalus

It was our western, North American, European definition, until recently, when it was brought into question by some who went looking anywhere they could to change that definition. As the discussion has been regarding North Carolina, and North America in general, I felt safe to use that as the basis for my definition.

Change it in order to end oppression of a minority. I asked this previously but not to you, but would you consider your own marriage less-important or invalid if gays are allowed to be married?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by photon

But why are they important? Are they important because they allow for mutual understanding? Or are they important because there's something intrinsic about the definition that transcends mere facilitation of communication?

The former is obvious, the latter isn't. Definitions change all the time, definitions of words are a result of the actual usage and/or thing being defined changing.

Definitions facilitate communication, that's all.



Not always, Wikipedia lists some examples of same sex marriages in history.

And even if it were true, why does that mean it should always be so? You've said here that the definition of marriage that you propose is the right one in all cases for all cultures in all times, and the only justification is that "definitions are important".

Until you can support why definitions are so important that they should transcend any potential reason for change, and why your definition is the right one, your argument which follows from those premises fails IMO.

I know where you are coming from, but it's more than that.

The definition is important even if it's just happening to you (and your spouse). It's about something important. Very few important things are undefined, and if they are, people do their best to define it. I got married. It has a meaning to it that was communicated to me what I had done. It's not just for mutual understanding, but for understanding oneself as well. At least this definition is.

And because it happened to me, and because it was important to me, it matters to me what happens to it, even if it shouldn't. Besides, if it wasn't important, and was easy to hand out like that, it wouldn't be worth fighting for, would it? In that case, it's important what the definition is even to those who disagree with parts of it's definition. Why not change the definition to "A marriage is a union between a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and it doesn't really mean anything"? That's a poor way of conveying what I mean, but it does to some degree.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I will try.

I should have said: Denying gays the right to marry is wrong, but allowing them isn't much better.

I don't know about most of you, but I find definitions to be important. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman that are not related to each other and who are not married to anyone else. (although in the distant past and/or Saudi Arabia, that last one is iffy).

Marriage is an important thing. Not a flippant thing, nor an iffy thing. I didn't get married because it was no big deal, that if things went south I could always divorce. That's not right. Where I come from, where I grew up, Marriage was a solemn thing. It went beyond politics and ordinary stuff.

So when I see things like this:



I guess I really should get past that. What I believe just isn't relevant anymore. The Institution of Marriage is indeed destroyed. I can understand why everyone should be free to do what they want, but I can also be disappointed in what they do.

Which is why I struggle with this argument. The definition stands as it is. No amount of wishing by anyone will change that meaning. The definition doesn't make homosexuals or their life choices right or wrong. It is merely what the word means. But at the same time, what it means, doesn't mean anything anymore. (I think that by this time it's clear that I'm no writer, and I'm not necessarily the best at putting my point of view across).

So then, are gays who want to marry being persecuted, and denied something that they will consider a powerful and transformative part of their lives? Some of them, yeah. Which is why it would be wrong to deny them this.

But are others just using it as a political statement, a statement about equality and rights and acceptance? Yes. Some of them are. It would be wrong to even further diminish something that still holds some value, merely because people are using it as a political statement. I guess I don't believe that marriage is dead, and that someday people are going to wake up and realize it is a powerful and valuable thing. But they probably won't.

Which brings up the question as to whether or not government should be involved in marriage in the first place. Half of me says no. They don't need to be there, having government get out of the marriage business would solve the problem. Everyone that wants a union can have a union, and no one can have a marriage, and we will all be happy. But the other half of me realizes that there are currently different levels of marriage, such as common law marriage (which I do not consider "real" marriage, just like I do not consider gay marriage "real" marriage), and other larger scale legal issues that revolve around rights, such as what happens when your partner dies? Or ownership issues. And that half of me does not want government to take away marriage, because my wife could end up with the government taking away all of the things that belonged to "me" from her when I die. That thought worries me.

So, in the end, there is no good answer. All the answers are bad ones, most of which really affect me, even if at the same time some don't affect me at all.


But a bigot is a bigot, right? And because I said I didn't agree with gay marriage, well...


By the way, I find it interesting that many of those who quoted me like this:


ignored the rest of the sentence.



It's a him, btw, not that it matters.

I'm just going to address your top two or three paragraphs, because that's a big post (but it's good that you came back and defended your words).

While the institution of marriage has always been cultural, and differing culture-to-culture in differing aspects, why does it need to remain static (in our culture) simply for its own sake? Tradition itself can be a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing, and tradition for the sake of tradition is never an adequate argument. If we deem this particular tradition as impinging on the rights of a minority group, and I think we can all agree (well, except for maybe mikey), that doing so is a bad thing, we have a reason to either dismiss the tradition, or force it to evolve, unless there is a greater reason to retain it in its current form. If the only defense to retain it in its current form is a religious one based in revelation, or an appeal to tradition fallacy, I don't believe that that is enough.

I also agree that marriage is a solemn, important thing. Not because of the need to have a relationship approved in the eyes of God, but because marriage, to me, is a test of two people's characters. It's a tough thing, and it should be admired and respected when a couple are able to make a go at it. In my opinion, marriage doesn't fail so often because marriage itself is flawed, but because human nature is flawed. It is easier to fail an oath than succeed at it.

That being said, I don't believe the institution of marriage has been destroyed in the modern world, but just that people are now more prone to speak out about the obvious deficiencies of those involved in it and the abuses done in the name of it. Long before today marriage was used as a tool to ally one family to another (and it still is in places like Pakistan). Young women were bartered like goods. Love was not the purpose of marriage, but material gain. That, to me, does not speak well of the perceived health of marriage in the past.

So, to me, marriage is a very solemn thing between two people, a true test of their ability to commit and manage over an entire lifetime, but not something that has had its foundations weakened due to changes in the modern world, but one that's simply had its rickety scaffolding exposed in all its unglory. I don't raise marriage, as an institution, above everything else, as an ideal. It has always been abused, and always will be, sometimes for material gain, sometimes to oppress the rights of others. Instead, what matters in my mind, is what two people, in the privacy of their own lives, make of it.

[Textcritic]

This was a very thoughtful post overall.

Originally Posted by Knalus

I don't know about most of you, but I find definitions to be important. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman that are not related to each other and who are not married to anyone else. (although in the distant past and/or Saudi Arabia, that last one is iffy).

I agree with you that definitions are important, but in this statement you have mis-spoken about what marriage "has always been", and seem to think that it is somehow arbitrary. The fact of the matter is that marriage has been culturally shaped since the beginning of time, and this will continue until the end. I believe that marriage is a sacred institution, but my understanding for why this is is most certainly different from what marriage was for many thousands of years in a variety of different cultures.

Marriage in the modern world is an expression of relational affection, and has become a contract to ensure the exceptional status of that relationship. In my mind, this is a much higher ideal than that which we inherited, in which marriage was a contract between families for the purpose of ensuring progeny. You complain about cavalier attitudes that have developed towards the institution of marriage, but I fear that you fail to recognize that this is an unfortunate consequence for how the definition of marriage has in fact changed for the better in time. Ancient divorce rates were low, and marriages were permanent not so because they were so much better, but because their function was much more sustainable, if less noble. By shifting its purpose away from procreation and towards companionship, this has created a considerable amount of instability for the institution itself. Let's be clear here: marriages fail more frequently in the modern world because it is extremely difficult to find, cultivate, and maintain meaningful companionship with just one other person for a lifetime. It is a credit to you and your spouse for surviving modern marriage; the fact that so many others cannot is not a blight on the current state of the institution, but rather a consequence for how lofty an ideal it has become.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Change it in order to end oppression of a minority. I asked this previously but not to you, but would you consider your own marriage less-important or invalid if gays are allowed to be married?

It wouldn't matter who it included, it's the fact people think it's just so easy to change. It implies that it isn't valued.

[Thor]

Not to mention its much harder to stay married when we live over twice as long as our ancestors

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Knalus

It was our western, North American, European definition, until recently, when it was brought into question by some who went looking anywhere they could to change that definition. As the discussion has been regarding North Carolina, and North America in general, I felt safe to use that as the basis for my definition.

The institution of marriage in Western and European societies has undergone substantial changes through its history. For example:

There were several types of marriages in ancient Roman society. The traditional ("conventional") form called conventio in manum required a ceremony with witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony.[48] In this type of marriage, a woman lost her family rights of inheritance of her old family and gained them with her new one. She now was subject to the authority of her husband.[citation needed] There was the free marriage known as sine manu. In this arrangement, the wife remained a member of her original family; she stayed under the authority of her father, kept her family rights of inheritance with her old family and did not gain any with the new family.[49] The minimum age of marriage for girls was 12.[50]

During the Middle Ages marriages were arranged, sometimes as early as birth, and these early pledges to marry were often used to ensure treaties between different royal families, nobles, and heirs of fiefdoms. The church resisted these imposed unions, and increased the number of causes for nullification of these arrangements.[53] As Christianity spread during the Roman period and the Middle Ages, the idea of free choice in selecting marriage partners increased and spread with it.[53]

As part of the Protestant Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state, reflecting Martin Luther's view that marriage was a "worldly thing".[63] By the 17th century many of the Protestant European countries had a state involvement in marriage. As of 2000, the average marriage age range was 25–44 years for men and 22–39 years for women. In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke's Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.[64]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriag...age_by_culture

On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world and the first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition. Court decisions, starting in 2003, each already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in those areas.[1] Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se...iage_in_Canada

Etc., etc., ...

[Senator Clay Davis]

Thor might have been joking but its not entirely inaccurate. "Till death do you part" was maybe 15-30 years of marriage in the old ages. Now if you get married young like many did (say 18), with an average living age of 81, thats 63 (!!!) years of marriage. Good luck living with the same person for 63 years and not losing your mind.

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This was a very thoughtful post overall.


I agree with you that definitions are important, but in this statement you have mis-spoken about what marriage "has always been", and seem to think that it is somehow arbitrary. The fact of the matter is that marriage has been culturally shaped since the beginning of time, and this will continue until the end. I believe that marriage is a sacred institution, but my understanding for why this is is most certainly different from what marriage was for many thousands of years in a variety of different cultures.

Marriage in the modern world is an expression of relational affection, and has become a contract to ensure the exceptional status of that relationship. In my mind, this is a much higher ideal than that which we inherited, in which marriage was a contract between families for the purpose of ensuring progeny. You complain about cavalier attitudes that have developed towards the institution of marriage, but I fear that you fail to recognize that this is an unfortunate consequence for how the definition of marriage has in fact changed for the better in time. Ancient divorce rates were low, and marriages were permanent not so because they were so much better, but because their function was much more sustainable, if less noble. By shifting its purpose away from procreation and towards companionship, this has created a considerable amount of instability for the institution itself. Let's be clear here: marriages fail more frequently in the modern world because it is extremely difficult to find, cultivate, and maintain meaningful companionship with just one other person for a lifetime. It is a credit to you and your spouse for surviving modern marriage; the fact that so many others cannot is not a blight on the current state of the institution, but rather a consequence for how lofty an ideal it has become.

Yeah it's much harder to enslave your spouse these days. Really sucks!

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I know where you are coming from, but it's more than that.

The definition is important even if it's just happening to you (and your spouse). It's about something important. Very few important things are undefined, and if they are, people do their best to define it. I got married. It has a meaning to it that was communicated to me what I had done. It's not just for mutual understanding, but for understanding oneself as well. At least this definition is.

And because it happened to me, and because it was important to me, it matters to me what happens to it, even if it shouldn't. Besides, if it wasn't important, and was easy to hand out like that, it wouldn't be worth fighting for, would it? In that case, it's important what the definition is even to those who disagree with parts of it's definition. Why not change the definition to "A marriage is a union between a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and it doesn't really mean anything"? That's a poor way of conveying what I mean, but it does to some degree.

You acknowledge that marriage is indeed something worth fighting for. Do you now see why gays are fighting for it?

With respect to legal definitions, consider the following:

One hundred years ago, you weren't legally considered a person if you were a woman.
Two hundred years ago, you weren't legally considered a person if you were black.

Surely you must agree that this was an injustice and it was necessary to change the definition of "person" to rectify those wrongs.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I know where you are coming from, but it's more than that.

The definition is important even if it's just happening to you (and your spouse). It's about something important. Very few important things are undefined, and if they are, people do their best to define it. I got married. It has a meaning to it that was communicated to me what I had done. It's not just for mutual understanding, but for understanding oneself as well. At least this definition is.

And because it happened to me, and because it was important to me, it matters to me what happens to it, even if it shouldn't. Besides, if it wasn't important, and was easy to hand out like that, it wouldn't be worth fighting for, would it? In that case, it's important what the definition is even to those who disagree with parts of it's definition. Why not change the definition to "A marriage is a union between a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and it doesn't really mean anything"? That's a poor way of conveying what I mean, but it does to some degree.

How does granting the right of marriage to everyone impact your marriage in any way? How does it alter your relationship?

A marriage is essentially a contract between two people and the State. Anything else you ascribe to it is strictly a manifestation of your beliefs and practices. The act of others marrying cannot alter that.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You acknowledge that marriage is indeed something worth fighting for. Do you now see why gays are fighting for it?

With respect to legal definitions, consider the following:

One hundred years ago, you weren't legally considered a person if you were a woman.
Two hundred years ago, you weren't legally considered a person if you were black.

Surely you must agree that this was an injustice and it was necessary to change the definition of "person" to rectify those wrongs.

Yes, I do.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I understand the idea that they want to "save" non-believers, but why can't they just let it go? If someone wants to burn in hell for being gay, why is it their problem?

Photon addressed this one quite succinctly. Every Christian that I know is not nearly so callous as to just live and let live: they are concerned for the well being of others, and generally consider themselves morally culpable for the actions of others. It is actually quite sad on a number of levels to see good, sincere and earnest people torture themselves emotionally for their failure to "save" people before they die.

Originally Posted by MattyC

A war on what? Semantics? What the definition of marriage is? It's just a word. Language evolves. If the concern is that gay marriage doesnt chime with Webster's definition is it really worth all this fighting? Does it invalidate your marriage if gay people can do it too?

For many Christians this is a cosmic war between good and evil. On a cosmic scale, it is not an understatement to say that EVERYTHING matters. Even something so incidental or semantic as the definition of "marriage" or "family". The reason why private life matters so much to many Christians is because everything about private life (thoughts, beliefs, seemingly benign rituals and behaviours) is amplified and its significance is exaggerated.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Christians just view this as another assault on traditional Christian values, of course clearly neglecting they are on their on assault against "The Lost" or "Those Who Need To Be Saved".

[photon]

Originally Posted by Knalus

It wouldn't matter who it included, it's the fact people think it's just so easy to change. It implies that it isn't valued.

I wouldn't say changing it to fit within the even higher principles of equality and freedom is "so easy to change".