Re: Re: POLITICS -- Marriage defined

[Guest guest]

From: " Christie " <christiekeith@...>

> We just want what you have. Cough it up, or give it up, I don't care

which. But don't suggest *I* am the one who is whining about the name.

I don't care if you call it turnips, as long as you don't have one

water fountain for me and another one for you.

>

> Christie

I have to say something here, after hoping this topic would just go

away on this list. In fact, I appealed to to keep topics like

this that are so far off topic off the list. I think such topics can

destroy the very purpose for which the list was created, and divide

those of us who otherwise have a very similar interest in the topic of

nutrition. But since he hasn't, and since the topic hasn't gone away,

I feel it's necessary to speak up also on a subject that I feel very

strongly and passionately about.

The problem with your request is that marriage has always been defined

as a union between a man and a woman. Yes, homosexual partnerships

have existed for a very long time, but they have never been described

in any society as a marriage. Two genders of the same sex cannot make

up a marriage because it defies the whole fundamental definition of

what a marriage is. While two people of the same gender can interact

sexually with each other, they cannot join in a true procreative

sexual union. While not all marriages produce children, the

propagation of the human race is a very important part of the

institution of marriage and family.

As far as I'm aware no one is denied marriage in our society, and I

imagine no one has a problem with you wanting to be married. However,

if you want to change the definition of a marriage by changing the

very elements (a man and a woman) that make up what a marriage is,

don't be surprised that many people have problems with that. Anything

can then be defined as marriage and marriage no longer has any value

for fulfilling its intended purpose.

Perhaps YOU don't care about that, but many people do. You say you

want marriage, or whatever it is that heterosexuals have even if they

end up calling it something else. But then you say you want to change

the basic elements of what that is, and call it the same thing. That's

ludicrous in my book, if not in yours. If someone wants *marriage*

then they need to find someone of the opposite gender to marry. But if

they want a partner of their same gender, then please call it

something else, because it's not a marriage.

Now from what I understand you are saying, what you want are the same

legal advantages that a married person has. But that's a whole

different arena than trying to make your homosexual partnership a

marriage. Certainly that can be pursued without messing with the whole

institution of marriage, which has been well established and defined

since the beginning of time.

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

>> If someone wants *marriage*

then they need to find someone of the opposite gender to marry. But if

they want a partner of their same gender, then please call it

something else, because it's not a marriage. <<

See, I think you're dead wrong. It IS a marriage, even if your brain can't grasp

that or it just makes you feel icky or it blows your mind or whatever your

problem with it is. Your reaction doesn't change what it is.

>> But then you say you want to change

the basic elements of what that is, and call it the same thing. <<

I have no idea what this means.

>> Yes, homosexual partnerships

have existed for a very long time, but they have never been described

in any society as a marriage. <<

So if that changes, if a society, let's say, an urban area of several million

people like, oh, the San Francisco Bay Area, or a state like, oh, say

Massachusetts, does describe it as a marriage, you'll drop your opposition?

>> Certainly that can be pursued without messing with the whole

institution of marriage, which has been well established and defined

since the beginning of time. <<

We've had a lot of things since the dawn of time, like slavery, which we now

find unconscionable, and wars of imperialism, and religous intolerance, and the

oppression of women, and infanticide.

If you mean that " no other society in history has given lesbian and gay couples

the same legal protection as heterosexual couples, " then I have to ask, are you

seriously suggesting that the United States should never offer a freedom or

right that no other nation ever offered before? Or that if I could find one

example from antiquity of a legal gay marriage you'd abandon your objections?

That makes no sense at all as the basis for your argument. There was a time when

mixed race marriage was illegal. Was the first state that legalized it wrong,

because no other state had ever allowed it before? Women didn't used to be able

to vote. Was the first country that gave women the vote wrong, because they'd

never had it before?

To say there have " never " been same-gender marriages is just plain wrong. I've

known a large number of lesbians and gay men who were married. I've been to

their weddings. Some churches marry lesbians and gay men identically to

heterosexual couples. Wedding gift registries, chuppas, families in attendance,

bad cover bands, and all.

Christie

[Guest guest]

From: " Christie " <christiekeith@...>

> >> If someone wants *marriage*

> then they need to find someone of the opposite gender to marry. But

if

> they want a partner of their same gender, then please call it

> something else, because it's not a marriage. <<

>

> See, I think you're dead wrong. It IS a marriage, even if your brain

can't grasp that or it just makes you feel icky or it blows your mind

or whatever your problem with it is. Your reaction doesn't change what

it is.

And neither does YOUR saying it's a marriage make it a marriage.

Actually, I do have a basis for defining marriage and it's the Bible.

Now maybe you don't believe it and don't give any credence to it, but

I do. You've had your say on this list, and now I'm sharing mine also.

> >> But then you say you want to change

> the basic elements of what that is, and call it the same thing. <<

>

> I have no idea what this means.

Let me reword it: you want to change the basic elements that make a

marriage a marriage (a man and a woman in procreative sexual union),

and then still call it marriage. If you change everything about the

basic framework of something, how can it still be the same thing? It's

like taking the head off a dog and putting it on a cat, then changing

its legs for bird legs, and putting an elephant's trunk on it, and

still calling it a cat. Even if you could do it it still wouldn't be a

cat.

> >> Yes, homosexual partnerships

> have existed for a very long time, but they have never been

described

> in any society as a marriage. <<

>

> So if that changes, if a society, let's say, an urban area of

several million people like, oh, the San Francisco Bay Area, or a

state like, oh, say Massachusetts, does describe it as a marriage,

you'll drop your opposition?

Of course not, for the reason I gave above. I ascribe to a higher

Being than the government or society, and no matter what they call a

homosexual partnership, it doesn't change what it is, nor does it

change what marriage is as God not only defined it, but created it to

be.

> >> Certainly that can be pursued without messing with the whole

> institution of marriage, which has been well established and defined

> since the beginning of time. <<

>

> We've had a lot of things since the dawn of time, like slavery,

which we now find unconscionable, and wars of imperialism, and

religous intolerance, and the oppression of women, and infanticide.

>

> If you mean that " no other society in history has given lesbian and

gay couples the same legal protection as heterosexual couples, " then I

have to ask, are you seriously suggesting that the United States

should never offer a freedom or right that no other nation ever

offered before? Or that if I could find one example from antiquity of

a legal gay marriage you'd abandon your objections? That makes no

sense at all as the basis for your argument. There was a time when

mixed race marriage was illegal. Was the first state that legalized it

wrong, because no other state had ever allowed it before? Women didn't

used to be able to vote. Was the first country that gave women the

vote wrong, because they'd never had it before?

>

These things are completely different than what you're proposing.

Again, you want something that someone else has but you want to change

what it is. A mixed race marriage still involves a man and a woman in

procreative sexual union. Women voting didn't change the definition of

voting. And so on.

> To say there have " never " been same-gender marriages is just plain

wrong. I've known a large number of lesbians and gay men who were

married. I've been to their weddings. Some churches marry lesbians and

gay men identically to heterosexual couples. Wedding gift registries,

chuppas, families in attendance, bad cover bands, and all.

>

Going through all those motions don't make two people of the same

gender married. They can pretend that it does, but no matter what they

do, they'll never be able to do what a man and a woman can: unite in

such a way to create another life without anyone else involved.

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

Fern-

>Anything

>can then be defined as marriage and marriage no longer has any value

>for fulfilling its intended purpose.

I understand your argument, and it has some genuine merit (arguing for

civil unions rather than gay marriage), but it has a key flaw as I see it,

namely that you're relying on a historical argument, but your history is

incomplete. Marriage has been used for many purposes besides procreation,

such as cementing alliances, whether of clan, tribe, state, royal house, or

even business. Sometimes children have been key to these deals, other

times not. Marriages have also been entered into and accepted when for

various reasons the parties involved could not hope to conceive -- such as

a man to an older (post-menopausal) woman, a woman to a man sufficiently

old and bedridden as to plainly be incapable of siring children, etc.

So if a marriage can be a marriage of state, why can't a marriage be a gay

marriage?

(And to answer your other point, I've been increasingly tempted to put a

stop to this extraordinarily off-topic and inflammatory discussion, but

behaviour has been somewhat better, and I really haven't had time to give

the matter proper attention and consideration. If it troubles you, though,

why not filter on the POLITICS tag to avoid reading any of it?)

-

[Guest guest]

From: " Idol " <Idol@...>

> Fern-

>

> >Anything

> >can then be defined as marriage and marriage no longer has any

value

> >for fulfilling its intended purpose.

>

> I understand your argument, and it has some genuine merit (arguing

for

> civil unions rather than gay marriage), but it has a key flaw as I

see it,

> namely that you're relying on a historical argument, but your

history is

> incomplete. Marriage has been used for many purposes besides

procreation,

> such as cementing alliances, whether of clan, tribe, state, royal

house, or

> even business. Sometimes children have been key to these deals,

other

> times not. Marriages have also been entered into and accepted when

for

> various reasons the parties involved could not hope to conceive --

such as

> a man to an older (post-menopausal) woman, a woman to a man

sufficiently

> old and bedridden as to plainly be incapable of siring children,

etc.

Right, but still the original and overall framework of marriage has

always been to form a family unit: a man and a woman reproducing

children without anyone else being involved. The fact that this union

also has had other advantages and purposes doesn't mean that it's main

purpose wasn't still intact. But to deviate now from this main

structure to allow it to mean other types of unions which don't

contain the main elements, destroys the whole meaning of what marriage

is.

I guess I see it as someone taking something and changing it for their

own purposes, and in the process totally destroying it. Why not leave

marriage intact as it is, and dealing with the " rights " of others in

another fashion? Homosexuals aren't the only ones being left out of

the privileges and advantages of marriage, anyway. I think Heidi

pointed that out very well.

> So if a marriage can be a marriage of state, why can't a marriage be

a gay

> marriage?

Well, again, you're trying to make something into a marriage that

doesn't and can't contain the basic elements of a marriage.

But besides that, I do believe that the whole idea of a civil marriage

has inherent problems anyway. Way back before the Council of Trent in

the mid 1500s, marriages were often formed simply by a man and a woman

setting up house together and starting a family. The Council of Trent

determined that for a marriage to be be sanctioned by the Church, it

needed to be a ceremony within the church. And of course when the

Roman Catholic Church became the State Church, marriage also became a

civil union. That has carried over into Western culture today. Now,

people don't consider themselves married unless they have a paper from

the government saying they are, and they take the government's word

for it also that their marriage can be dissolved. The government now

determines everything about a family: who the children should live

with, who is actually husband and wife and who isn't. It's caused

many, many problems all around.

So now we have gay people thinking it is the government who can make

them married also. But even if the government tries to legislate gay

marriages, it still doesn't fundamentally make them married, as it

defies the basic elements of what marriage is.

> (And to answer your other point, I've been increasingly tempted to

put a

> stop to this extraordinarily off-topic and inflammatory discussion,

but

> behaviour has been somewhat better, and I really haven't had time to

give

> the matter proper attention and consideration. If it troubles you,

though,

> why not filter on the POLITICS tag to avoid reading any of it?)

<grin> I could, and I've tried to ignore these off-topic posts, and

have on a lot of them. But this topic of marriage is one I've had

interest in for reasons I won't go into here, and feel very

passionately about, and feel should be defended. I didn't want to get

into it on this list because that's not why I'm on this list. BUT,

since you allowed it to keep going, and others were making their

arguments for gay " marriage, " I felt it important to offer another

perspective. An important one, IMO.

The main thing I see is that this list unites all of us on a topic we

all have a common interest in. Obviously on other topics we differ

wildly. Those differences on topics this list isn't even about can not

only detract from the purpose of this list, but could actually destroy

it. Especially when an off topic like this one takes up more bandwidth

than the on-topic ones and involves a lot of heated emotions.

But I think I've had more than my say for one day.

~ Fern

P.S. I do want to say that I think you're doing a great job running

the list, . The " POLITICS " tags have been very helpful in ignoring

a vast number of posts, and it's just good to have someone keeping

things in order.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/18/04 10:34:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> Actually, I do have a basis for defining marriage and it's the Bible.

Fern,

Then you are advocating the legal enshrinement of a particular religion.

Also, the Bible doesn't clearly, to my knowledge, offer any legal definition

of marriage.

I personally find enforcing through legislation either the moral equivalency

or the moral disequivalency of heterosexual and homosexual marriage both to be

asinine and repugnant.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/18/04 11:35:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> And of course when the

> Roman Catholic Church became the State Church, marriage also became a

> civil union. That has carried over into Western culture today

This is in no way the origin of state marriage. The pre-Christian Roman

Empire had state marriage, and it was used a tool of oppression-- there were

legal

punishments for those who didn't marry. I believe one of the main goals was

to increase the population of the empire, so presumably gay marriages would

not be valuable.

Chris

[Guest guest]

It's economics just like heterosexual marriage! More tax $$ from couples

that can't marry, have to file single, less people on medical insurance

policies, no retirement to transfer after death etc, etc. Even with legal,

spiritual legitimate heterosexual marriage there's something that's going to

tell you at some point that it has more rights than you do.

> I personally find enforcing through legislation either the moral

equivalency

> or the moral disequivalency of heterosexual and homosexual marriage both

to be

> asinine and repugnant.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/19/04 9:06:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> It's economics just like heterosexual marriage! More tax $$ from couples

> that can't marry, have to file single, less people on medical insurance

> policies, no retirement to transfer after death etc, etc. Even with legal,

> spiritual legitimate heterosexual marriage there's something that's going to

> tell you at some point that it has more rights than you do.

My understanding is that joint-filers pay more taxes than they would if

filing singly, because none of the second person's income is counted as being in

the lower brackets.

Chris