Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

[DRoseDARs]

nm crosspost

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
No. They banned interracial marriage (and it wasn't just Southern states). There would've been no need to ban interracial marriage if there hadn't been some broad-based acceptance of the idea that the definition of marriage in no way barred men and women of different races from marrying.

So banning interracial marriage doesn't change the definition of marriage? What strange definitions you have.

So what exactly are laws in areas that don't have gay marriage (like Florida) that ban the practice of gay marriage doing?

[Aeson]

There would've been no need to ban interracial gay marriage if there hadn't been some broad-based acceptance of the idea that the definition of marriage in no way barred (wo)men and women of different races (wo)men from marrying

fixed.

[Naked Gents Rut]

So banning interracial marriage doesn't change the definition of marriage? What strange definitions you have.

Of course it didn't. It restricted blacks and whites from exercising a right they had exercised before. There was broad agreement that the definition of marriage (in the absence of such restrictions) would allow people of different races to marry.

fixed.

There had been no attempts to ban gay marriage until recently because no one ever thought that gays could get married in the first place. It wasn't until activists and judges began to change the definition of marriage that others felt the need to ban gay marriage.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There was broad agreement that the definition of marriage (in the absence of such restrictions) would allow people of different races to marry.

You mean it changed the definition of marriage.

[Naked Gents Rut]

No, I don't.

This isn't really that complicated, but I guess I'm going to have to come up with a simple analogy to explain it to you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously you are tying yourself in knots to deny the truth.

[DRoseDARs]

I'll post here what I posted at DU:

Anthropologists have debunked this "traditional marriage" nonsense for years...

Edited on Mon Nov-10-08 03:36 AM by DRoseDARs
We wouldn't be having this civil union vs marriage vs economic vs religious debate if more people had a basic understand of the true history of marriage. If you agree with what follows, please recommend and keep this kicked.



Here is just one example of people who know what they are talking about weighing in on a subject that they know and can talk about. This article was published in 2004 when Bush was peddling his Defense of Marriage Act schlock to stir up his base.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2004/4-16/news/national/...

AAA (no, not the auto group) web link to their 2004 statement and related links:

http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-...

Of particular note, the American Anthropological Association in March of 2008 even called out Focus on the Family for misrepresenting and grossly distorting what the AAA had said about the issue.

http://aaanewsinfo.blogspot.com/2008/03/anthropologists...

Main points from the Washington Blade article:
What we as Americans understand as "traditional marriage" in the United States is only about 200 years old.
Polygamy (polyandry is the reverse, one wife taking several husbands) was the norm up to Roman times and remains practiced in several cultures.
The Romans "systematized marriage by establishing an age of consent and specifying unions across socio-economic classes."
The Church (now the Roman Catholic Church) pushed monogamy, but it still took centuries to take.
Marriage was first and foremost an economic arrangement, secondly about children, finally about love.
The ancient Greeks and later both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox performed a few of what may be considered "gay marriages" in the Middle Ages.
Today, some societies still have "gay marriages" as part of their traditions, handed down through many generations over the centuries and millennium.



A 4-paragraph selection from the Washington Blade article:
In his recent book, “The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture,” George Mason University anthropologist Roger Lancaster argues that the notion of one-man, one-woman marriage crept into the collective consciousness of American society only within the past 200 years — a result of both the industrial revolution, and the media’s influence.

“Leaders often make global pronouncements about ‘marriage,’ as though it were a self-evident institution,” Lancaster said. “Depending on its cultural context, marital unions can involve a host of different persons in a number of possible combinations. People are inventive and creative about the way they create kinship networks.”

Marriage, as Americans envision it today, didn’t exist during the time of the Old Testament, or even as the Apostles spread the word of Christianity across the Middle East and Europe. Rather, marriage has consistently adjusted to religious, political and economic changes, anthropologists said.

Throughout the pre-Christian world, most civilizations practiced polygamy, until the Romans systematized marriage by establishing an age of consent and specifying unions across socio-economic classes, according to Lancaster. The Roman Catholic Church soon spread the vision of monogamy, but it took hundreds of years to become the universal axiom, he added. Even then, families arranged marriages, usually as a business transaction with the bride accompanying a piece of land to farm, or a livestock inheritance.



My comments:
Ever since I took my first (and only; haven't had the time to take others, not part of my degree path) cultural anthropology class, I've been amazed at the lack of even a basic understand most people have of what they're talking about, on BOTH sides of this issue. My view is the government should do one of two things: Either provide equal rights to legitimately-based marriages OR don't provide any government-sponsored benefits whatsoever to any matrimonial arrangement. It's as simple as that. Governments of a small d democratic nature have a vested interest in promoting stability in society (whereas governments of other types have a more vested interest specifically in not being overthrown by popular revolt). Marriage provides economic security for millions of Americans. From that economic security comes better health care, roofs over heads and food on tables, higher education opportunities for progeny, better quality of life for spouses, and a better chance of stable and secure living circumstances after retirement. Though it is not obligated to per se (though the Preamble to the US Constitution implies otherwise), our government would be acting in its and our best interests in promoting marriage for as many people as possible.

Some will complain about the slippery slopes of polygamy (polyandry too) and incest and bestiality and child marriage, but only one of those arguments has any merits worthy of discussion/consideration. Children are literally incapable of giving legal consent as they haven't developed physiologically enough to sufficiently understand the world around them or to even fully understand what is being asked of them in marriage. Animals can't give legal consent, full stop. Incest is usually of the adult-child variety and as such runs afoul of the "children can't give legal consent" problem so it's a nonstarter. Incest of the adult-adult variety can cause health problems for any progeny resulting from their union. That one is a gray area, but the vast majority of people won't touch it, especially within their own family (pun intended). There's an almost primal, instinctual revulsion to it that goes well-beyond whatever society says of it, so you won't find many honest proponents.

That leaves us with polygyny/polyandry. The only thing wrong with it isn't so much it as it is the people who practice it. No, I'm not talking about Mormons or Muslims. I'm talking about the people who take several spouses and treat them all as less equal to themselves. As already mentioned, and fleshed out in the article a bit, polygamy was about ownership since the beginning. In modern times, polygamy is oftentimes STILL about ownership. Polygamous husbands are often sadistic and controlling, making their wives and children into everything but slaves outright. If polygamy didn't exist, these men would be beating their wife instead of their wives. Either way, these individuals have no business having spouses or children in the first place because they'd abuse them in either scenario. I imagine polyandrous
examples of this abusive environment exist too, but good luck find them. I won't demonize polygyny/polyandry (funny thing, this having a basic education on the subject matter) because like any marriage the people involved have to make it work equally for all, but I will say I would never go for it for myself. The economic security (and the things that come with that) are greater in such arrangements but just as some people have zero interest in having even one spouse, I have zero interest in having several or sharing one with others. Call me selfish.

Correction: Polygamy is one person having multiple spouses, polygyny is one husband having multiple wives, polyandry is one wife having multiple husbands

For me, marriage is still about economic security, but that takes a backseat to everything else. In truth, to me the old formula has reversed:
1)Love first - What is the point if you hate each other? Do you really want that bastard spending YOUR hard-earned money on his/her selfish needs?
2)Children second - Are you really such bastards as to bring/adopt children into such an unhealthy relationship?
3)Economics last - You're out what, the price of dinner and a movie when you find out you hate each other?
And what of bad relationships? If you find out after you're married, just end it. Don't drag it out. Don't wait for him to hit you a second time. Don't wait for her to promise not to cheat again. It's clear that the relationship isn't based on what either of you thought it was based on. End it as amicably as you can now instead of waiting for the situation to turn poisonous for all involved. Maybe you can salvage a friendship or if not, then at least make things easier for your children.

Coming back specifically to gay marriage, anyone pushing "civil unions" may be (and on DU, almost certainly are) well-meaning, but the same might be said of "separate but equal" and I don't think anyone here on DU really wants to go down that path because that is the only place it leads. Anyone pushing "civil unions" may as well be pushing the anti-science noise against Climate Change for all the sense it makes, because it is the same unfortunate display of ignorance (willful or otherwise) of the subject matter. People who are smarter and more educated than either you or I have spent their professional careers researching the actual history of marriage throughout Human history and have called out the "traditional marriage" nonsense for what it is: Nonsense. Please stop peddling the nonsense and don't feed the trolls.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
There had been no attempts to ban gay inter-racial marriage until recently because no one ever thought that gays inter-racial couples could get married in the first place. It wasn't until activists and judges emancipation began to change the definition of marriage that others felt the need to ban gay inter-racial marriage.

fixed

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Of course it didn't. It restricted blacks and whites gays from exercising a right they had exercised before. There was broad agreement that the definition of marriage (in the absence of such restrictions) would allow people of different races gays to marry.

fixed

[Naked Gents Rut]

Obviously you are tying yourself in knots to deny the truth.

No, you're just stupid.

Think of it this way. We all have a definition of "self-defense" in our mind. This generally includes shooting someone who enters into your home. Now say you move to a city where guns are banned, liked DC until recently. If you shoot some who enters your home there, you're still engaging in "self-defense" as generally defined, but your behavior is also now illegal. Think of anti-miscegenation laws like gun bans. The generally accepted definition of "marriage" or "self-defense" wasn't changed, but certain behaviors that would be legal under an unrestricted view of those definitions are made illegal by law.

An imperfect analogy, I'll admit, but the best I could come up with in a couple minutes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you shoot some who enters your home there, you're still engaging in "self-defense" as generally defined, but your behavior is also now illegal.

And therefore D.C. has changed the definition of self-defense. You can call it "self-defense", but that won't fly in D.C. - cause they don't consider it that. "Generally defined" is useless, because it isn't what is specifically defined everywhere.

Stop trying to tie yourself in knots.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
An imperfect analogy...

Well at least we can agree on something

[Naked Gents Rut]

And therefore D.C. has changed the definition of self-defense.

No, they haven't. They just placed legal restrictions on how you can exercise self-defense.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Stop trying to tie yourself in knots.

No, please don't. Continue...