The Marriage Equality Juggernaut just keeps rolling on

Well, I can appreciate your perspective; but by that perspective, I'm not married. I don't measure up to your standard. You have judged me, and found me wanting.

I certainly think of myself as being married though. My wife is pretty certain that we're married. I definitely have that tired, too many bills, married man look on my face. We have the wedding video, the scrapbook, and the marriage certificate. We stood up in front of witnesses, and said "I do." But we're still not quite up to your standard.

Marriage by your definition has to be: "before God, for the betterment of the family, and with the intent of children."

My wife and I were married before a judge, in a park, before our family and friends. No god's name was invoked, and no church's blessing was sought. When my wife and I were married, we had no intention of having children. We had, in fact quite deliberately decided against it. We adopted a child many years later, but it was not a consideration at our marriage. In spite of our many matrimonial short comings, we were still allowed by the state to marry.

I would support the right of any church or other religious institution to refuse to conduct a marriage ceremony for anyone that they choose, for any reason; because I regard these institutions to be private clubs, and I don't think they should have to accommodate practices that conflict with their views. I don't agree with a "gay agenda" being forced down the throats of Christian America; or any other agenda being forced down the throats of any others.

But, marriage, contrary to common perception, is not exclusively a Christian creation. It is a right/rite practiced by those of many beliefs around the globe, and was practiced long before Christianity (or even Judaism) existed, in one form or another; though it has not always been one man and one woman. Modern Christians may have their idea of what marriage means to them, and that's great; but that is not necessarily what marriage means to all.

Until we have to go down to the local parish priest and request permission to marry, and pass an examination on our religious knowledge and lack of heretical beliefs, marriage in this country is a secular matter; and as such must be a right available to all.

 

Many cultures have their own methods, their own religions, their own languages. And to each his/her own.
But I am sick and tired of having MY world skewed, by someone else's agenda. I will not rewrite what marriage means to me, because someone else wants to be in my tribe.
I'm not what people would call "politically correct". I don't agree with everyone gets a trophy just for showing up, or using purple pens because red is too harsh (wrong is still wrong, no matter how the kid feels about it.)
I don't believe Shakespeare should be rewritten so as not to offend the Moors, or to portray gypsies as a better class than the thieves they were. or adding another amendment to the bill of rights to guarantee the free ride most folks seem to want.
I'm sick of double standards, that will force women into men's clubs, but would balk at allowing men into a womansy gym. Or being called a racist because I don't like a man who is an @$$, and happens to be black. I'm tired if having to defend what is mine, from those who keep wanting to redefine it. Or from those who want to rewrite history to mean something different. Suppressing facts, and changing details.
I'm constantly being pushed to "accommodate " someone else's agenda, but they don't care about mine. Somehow, standing up for the status quo, is seen as easy? HELL NO! It ain't easy. It is a constant battle of saying NO! Leave that alone! That ain't yours! It is a constant battle with thieves of meanings, words, and heritage. It is a state of constant seige, to even speak good English.
Even here, with many older folks, you still hear "proly cuz" instead of probably because.
I see no reason to allow my world view to be twisted to "accommodate" yet another group who want to change my world to suit themselves. (And to hell with everyone else who doesn't agree with them).
I'm holding the line, because I'm tired of being pushed.

 

Fair enough.

 

I understand your feelings and agree some much of what you have expressed, particularly with reworking Bill's Othello. Bill was an equal opportunity racial stereotypist, having not a lot endearing things to say for murderous Scots, mad Danes, usurous Jews, volatile Italians (Verona / Mantua etc....Italy wasn't Italy in then thar times) and so forth. Bill's plays and poetry are products of their times...to be examined and taught in the terms of those times. That said...in the context of the term marriage, the "words have meanings argument" that the word "marriage" means "The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman " and can only mean that particular kind of gender coupling (via:marriage: definition of marriage in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)) is a non sequiteur. Marriage, in the Judeo/Christian context has meant a number of kinds of markedly different combinations of male and female relationship composition, few of which have any contemporary currency..

Most cultural instititions change: they change quickly, or slowly over time, many words change their meanings over space and time, sometimes to the point that the word no longer describes the institution, except as an anachronism. Expecting a cultural institution to remain static so as to remain conformant to the word that originally described it is absurd. That is not the way that human culture works. It's something like a linguistic King Canute, demanding that the waves of cultural change cease, in order that the status quo of a particular word meaning doesn't have to change.

Marriage in the Judeo Christian tradition has certainly changed as a cultural institution over the past few thousand years. There is no reason to bind a society's marriage practices to a dictionary definition, or even to the traditions of one or more religious traditions. I don't think the compilers of Websters, or the Oxford or Cambridge dictionaries will have an attack of the horrors if the usage of the term "marriage" changes to reflect contemporary reality, rather than an imagined ideal, sourced to some supposed golden age in the past.

Following is an extract of an article that explores the word definition conundrum a little further.

 

If you wish to continue, to warp what is not into what is, then pray continue your soliloquy. But it will be a solo act, for Elvis has left the building.

 

I do get a little tired of the old "You can't just change the biblical meaning of marriage" canard.

I can't remember where I first heard it, but someone commented, and I agree, that unless you can still trade a couple of sheep and a horse for your neighbor's daughter, we have already changed the biblical model...

Just sayin'

 

@PaxMentis YOU MEAN YOU CANT DO THAT, great, now what am I going to do with these extra sheep and a donkey

 

Now you can keep you sheep and your horse and marry your daughter. Daughter who plans on marrying her father talks about their incestuous relationship | Daily Mail Online Whee haw..... slippery slope has begun. These two are going to procreate. The guy will get a twofer, he can be the Dad and the Grandpa- let the inbreeding begin!



*please note I don't mean to offend but let's throw this in the mix. It is the trail we are on. I am making light of this but in no way do I feel lightly about this.

 

Since this is a survival site one thing that comes to mind as I have followed this thread is, " Can people set their disdain for other lifestyles and band together in a SHTF scenario?" If all that is left around you post collapse are a bunch of illegals, or homosexuals, skin heads or whatnot, could you set aside your personal standards and work with those that in solid times you wouldn't respect or condone?

 

There are indeed some very good reasons why incestuous marriages should be prohibited, and none of them have to do with offending religious sensibilities, or the sanctity of marriage, whatever that phrase means to those who so often wield it as some sort of cudgel. I saw where New Jersey was getting around to considering a ban on incestuous marriages due to the above cited account. I don't know if its a good thing that they've never felt the need to have such a prohibition, or a bad thing that they've never felt the need to have such a prohibition. Its a perspective thing I suppose.

 

Adapt or die. Not saying one should "go gay" (as one example) or whatever but when SHTF rules change.

As long as one group or another does not pose a physical threat then tolerance needs to rule the day.

Acceptance is another matter and is dependent on personal issues.

 

That is a good question Mm. And a question that each of us may be compelled to visit and make decisions about. I am of the view that it's not so much what a person presents as, but what value the person has to the survival of me as an individual, and to the group I may be banded with.

As far as I am concerned, they can be a gay, skinhead illegal, and provided that they are fully committed to the group's survival, can abide by the group's code of conduct, can bring useful survival skills and resources to the group, and are pro-social in their values and behaviours...then I'd be prepared to accept them provisionally into the group. Whether they get to remain, depends upon how well they pull their weight, and whether or not their continued membership in the group is likely to be an asset or an unacceptable liability.

I don't see the issue as setting aside my personal standards or values, but not allowing biases (for or against) from clouding my judgement.

 

Honestly Moto...my feelings on this are really pretty Darwinian. At least this is keeping one particular concentration of pollution of the gene pool together instead of spreading it into perfectly good lines...hopefully it will die out.

 

That is a pretty wide question if you ask me...some of the groups you mention would certainly not be automatically rejected as allies in a given situation. HOWEVER, at least in my case, there are some groups not mentioned with whom I could in no way cooperate.

I can disagree with someone's lifestyle and still work with them in basic survival...a group of illegals post collapse? I am not sure illegal would really be an issue then and it would depend upon the individuals in the group and their goals. Skinheads can mean a lot of different things these days, if it means Nazis I really couldn't see being able to work much with them, their goal is really against my idea of survival...same with the communists really. So it is really too wide a question for me to answer. Mostly if I didn't think I could work with whatever group for whatever reason there is always the option to "un-ass the AO" as a good friend used to say.

 

I have a pretty solid stance on this . First of all making laws that say you MUST recognize gay marriage is really bad law. This has already led to one law suit where two men are suing a pastor for refusing to marry them. This is where it has gone overboard. The Church does not accept gay marriage nor should it be forced to. Gay marriage is a civil thing so as Christ commanded give unto Cesar what is Cesar's and to God what is God's. GAYS SHOULD BE ABLE TO ENGAGE IN A CIVIL UNION performed by a court or court appointed official. They should have the same legal rights as opposite sex couples in regards to home ownership, retirements , etc. . It should NOT be defined as Marriage but as a civil Union. This is the right course on this issue. Leave the Church out of it completely. Stop calling it marriage and call it what it is , A CIVIL UNION. Passing laws that make it legal also make it illegal for Religion to refrain. This is bad law.

 

I apprehend where you are coming from, in the context of your own personal religious world view; and your sentiments are undoubtedly shared by many, of different religious traditions. Different gods: but same general prejudices (purportedly justified by their different and sometimes conflicting sacred scriptures) are applied against LBGTQI folk.

You, according to the US Constitution, have the liberty to express your stance on this issue, just as others have the liberty to express views contrary to your own. That is the essence of freedom of expression...the freedom of exercise of religion that the US Constitution guarantees US citizens, that the Government (at all levels) cannot not obligate its citizens to adhere to any particular religious belief or practice, nor obligate its citizens to refrain from any religious belief or practice, (unless there is a compelling government interest Government interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in doing so: e.g. Employment Division v. Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ; even then, Congress legislated for an exemption Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to accommodate users of sacramental peyote as an element of indigenes American Indian religious ritual. When the US government does seek to limit some religious liberty, it is subject to judicial review, under the legal doctrine of due process (procedural and substantive due process)Substantive due process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )



(1) Your stance is certainly committed, but whether solid, is debatable.

(2) Please cite the relevant laws with links, that we may compare and contrast what they actually a say, as a common basis for discussion.

The issue is, as far as I can see, that both same sex and opposite sex couples are eligible to be issued with a marriage license in many US States; and that the US Government may eventually recognise that married same sex couples, as being eligible for the same entitlements, benefits, and legal protections as opposite sex couples. You as an individual are not obliged to recognise gay marriage; and the odds are, that even as a public official, there will most likely be wide exemptions for people to be able to exercise their religious prejudices against gay couples, by recusing themselves from delivering public services to gays, on the basis of exercising their own religious liberty.

Furthermore, any such legislation is likely to have to run the gauntlet of the Sherbet Test, Sherbert v. Verner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(3) Please cite your reference. It's all very well putting the fear of god into other monkeys that the hetero-centric world as they know it is going the way of Sodom and Gomorrah, but as far as I can tell, the only gay couple suing a church to be married within the church that they are members of, are two millionaire gay dads in Danbury the UK. Gay dads campaign for church wedding (From Chelmsford Weekly News) . Evidently the two gay dads are practicing Christians, acceptable as far as tithing, and supporting the Church's mission financially are concerned, but not for the purposes of tying the knot together. However it should be noted that the UK does not have a Bill of Rights in the same way as the US does so it is uncertain that the suit will go anywhere within the British legal system, even though the very act of litigating their suit is likely to send religious institutions, there and elsewhere into conniptions.

On the other hand....in a country that does have a Bill of Rights (the USA if one couldn't guess)...a mainstream CHURCH et al has sued their State (North Carolina) to be able to solemnise GAY MARRIAGES!

It would seem that some Christians see the freedom to solemnise marriages is as much their right to free exercise of religion as some biblical literalist Christians claim the their religious freedom not to solemnise such marriages. Way to go UCC!

emphasis mine.

UCC's lawsuit was successful, and as a consequence, North Carolina's ban on same sex marriage was overturned as unconstitutional...

UCC Victorious in Lawsuit as Judge Strikes Down N.C. Gay Marriage Ban | The Union Church of Hinsdale, U.C.C.

Nice to see something positive spring from the Hobby Lobby decision! Something of an own goal for religious conservatives n'est-ce pas? A nice example of the law of unforseen consequences in action!

(4) I am not sure whether the church you are referring to is the particular church that is being litigated against, or the church as a Christian institution collectively in the USA.

I take the view that churches ought be free to exercise their own biases and prejudices against solemnising the marriages of gay folk, as they do with solemnising the marriages of mixed colour / mixed race / mixed religion. I also think, that Churches should be treated like private clubs (or secret societies like Freemasonry), whereby if you wanna join, then you abide by their rules...as silly and as arbitrary as they may be, or you don't get to be initiated into the secret handshakes and passwords that get you through the portal into their world. However, denying same sex couples recognition by the State as being married (after meeting the State's requirements for marriage applicable to all couples (regardless of sexual attraction), just so Christians, or Muslims or (insert religion here), feelings may not be aggrieved, is not justifiable. Take a leaf from the Loving vs Virginia decision, Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which garnered much religiously motivated opposition at the time.Loving v. Virginia, then and now: race, sexuality, religion, & law | UNC Press Blog .





(5) I don't think that the "Render unto Caesar" quotes in the Synoptic Gospels are relevant in the context upon which JC made them. Remember that Jesus was playing rabbinical dodge ball with his Pharisee and Herodian accusers, so the context was in relation to coinage and taxation issues affecting Jews (hoping to trap Jesus into admitting to treason (against the Romans) or heresy against the Jewish sectarian laws.

A much more relevant NT quote, if we are to engage in Jeddi biblical quote play, would be Romans 13:1-7

Emphasis mine (CV)

Bearing in mind that although Romans 13:7 allows for some wriggle room to equivocate upon what constitutes respect, and honour; it seems pretty clear that if the governing authority rolls for allowing same sex marriage, then, it's a matter of getting with god's plan man...otherwise god would not have appointed the governing authorities that rule over you, and defying the government, is to defy gods decisions and choices. edit: Even if god chose King Barry over Mittens.

(6) Same sex couples should be issued with the same State issued marriage license as all other opposite sex couples, with marriage status recognised as identical to all other opposite sex couples. The State should have no business dictating what kind of solemnisation ritual or ceremony the married couple may choose to celebrate their marriage by, nor should Churches be compelled to provide marriage solemnisation if it is contrary to their doctrine and practices, similarly the State cannot deny the right of churches to offer a religious solemnisation if that is what they choose to do.

Although some religious sects grudgingly concede the "Separate but Equal" fiction of marriage and civil union actually being equal, but the reality is that the distinction is an arbitrary one, (that just so happens to coincide with some people's world view), that is none the less viewed as actually being unequal by society more broadly.


Via: FORUM - ADream.us - Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right? | ADream.us

(7) On this point, we are both in agreement!

(8) As has been pointed out elsewhere, Religion generally, and specific faith traditions in particular, do not own the trade mark on the word known as "marriage", and they don't own the copyright on the cultural institution, known in the English language as, called marriage. Marriage as a human cultural institution, pre-existing all of the Abrahamic religions, and many pagan and animist religions as well. I am doubtful that primitive peoples had any concept of what we would currently identify as a state sanctioned civil union by consenting couples, indeed marriage in many places and times did not necessarily involve religious ritual or sanction at all. Often enough it was a commercial arrangement where one father sold off a surplus daughter in exchange for the bride price of a few goats or camels from the father of the prospective husband to be.

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(9) No it is not. Although it may be the righteous course, that also happens to agree with some faith traditions, it is a course of action that denies a significant proportion of the population their civil rights as citizens to be afforded equal treatment before the law.

(10) I'm tempted to agree whole heartedly, but for different reasons than you may have in expressing that notion. The church cannot be excluded from the issue, simply being that the church has certain rights, guaranteed by the US Constitution's Bill of Rights to express their views in the public arena. Churches can't, and probably wouldn't want to be excluded from the public discussion of this issue; nor can they really ignore the national conversation on the issue of marriage equality, hoping that it will all go away.

(11) See my response in my point # (8).

(12) Interesting bald assertion, but the burden of proof is on you to substantiate the claim. Your claim undoubtedly appeals to the fears of those who share your views, but you need to provide the evidence that the claim has any substance.

(13) A matter of opinion. Marriage equality legislation has been enacted in several European Union countries since 2000CE, and those countries seem to be functioning ok without descending into a new Sodom and Gomorrah.

Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

(Following on from my post#36 The Marriage Equality Juggernaut just keeps rolling on | Page 4 I suggest the following Solomonian solution to the awful dilemma....for both same sex couples and religious fundamentalists....

The State issues every eligible couple who wants to be hitched....(same sex couples and opposite sex couples alike), with a Civil Union license, and accord all civil union licensees with all the same recognition, regards benefits, entitlements and legal protections; and the happy couples can then call their mutual conjugal entrapment whatever they like...marriage, mutual matrimonial masochism, civil union, domestic merger, connubial alliance, conjugal craziness......or indeed, some invention of their own devising....

Then, everyone gets to call their hitched relationship what ever they like....It should bring a Hallmark led economic recovery to the land of the free. Everyone is a winner except Satan, who just hates people being happy.

 

The Bible defines Marraige as one man and one woman . Let civil law call it a civil union if they want. But Marriage is between one man and one woman. That is where this whole fight gets going. After your long page of history you basically said the same thing, lets call it a civil union . My problem is that if we make a law stating that it is legal to have gays "marry" then there will cases such as the two gays in the U.K. suing churches for refusing to marry them. However no one is disputing marriage between man and woman. Leave the church and its definition of marriage out of it. Call it civil union , let the state perform it , give all the same rights etc and be done with it. All of the Christians and other religions will shut up if this route is taken. It is our DEFINITION of the word Marriage that is the problem. And my stance is solid because its mine. MY STANCE not yours or anyone else.

 

The slippery slope argument to heterosexual married incest, and mixed species marriage is logically flawed on so many levels.

1. Citing a proposed father-daughter heterosexual marriage, would seem to be an argument against heterosexual marriage, rather than same sex marriage. The slippery slope to father-daughter marriage was started with Adam and Eve, steepened and made even more slippery by Lot and his two unnamed virgin daughters;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19:30-38&version=9
Lot (biblical person) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Via:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Lot_daughters_Jan_Muller.jpg

Amram and Jochebed ( a bit of heterosexual aunt / nephew action, resulting in the conception of Moses and Aaron) also contributed significantly to slope slipperyness as well.







Don't put incestuous marriage onto Adam and Steve....at least not until sons start wanting to marry their fathers and daughters start wanting to marry their mothers!

In terms of risks of heritable genetic disorders, no such risk applies in the case of same sex mother-daughter and father-son marriages, unless they use donor sperm or eggs from opposite sex parents/siblings/sons/daughters /aunts/uncles/grandparents for invitro fertilisation .... such relationships would be rare, and have to face the societal disgust factor generally attendant to such relationships.

Incest and Disgust | Repugnant Conclusions

 

"A male rapist and his victim
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker."

You lost me when you agreed with this. As an example of "marriage".
A little history here (mine). I had a friend in college, who after a party, crashed on the couch for the night, she had had a couple of drinks, but was not drunk, and it was late, so it made more sense to be safe, and not drive. She awoke, to find someone she didn't even know on top of her and in her.
He WAS drunk, and felt she wanted it, because she WAS horizontal and didn't even TRY to fight him off (at least until she was awake). Now you would say she was married? That is funny, if I ever catch the bastard, it will not be his " wedding" I dance at.

I do not accept you definition of "marriage", sir.