a thought on marriage

[Socrates]

I'll try this from a different angle (since those that refuse to acknowlege objective morality will refuse to see homosexual acts as immoral).

Leaving aside the morality issue, should [i]any[/i] two consenting people be able to obtain a legal marriage?

Say I and my roomate Tom (who doesn't exist, by the way, just an example) decide we like the legal or tax benefits of marriage, and decide to get a legal marriage to each other.
Tom and I are both straight and have no sexual or romantic interest in each other. In fact, we both like to pick up women every weekend at the local bar (without any interest in marrying them). But we both consent to this "marriage," and we're bestest of buddies and, hey, we love each other! (albeit not in a gay way).
Hey, we may be weird, but wouldn't it be prejudiced to deny us a legal "marriage"?

Should Tom and I be allowed to be legally "married" to one another?

If not, why not?

If so, seems a marriage is pretty meaningless.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 23 2004, 02:50 PM'] I'll try this from a different angle (since those that refuse to acknowlege objective morality will refuse to see homosexual acts as immoral).

Leaving aside the morality issue, should [i]any[/i] two consenting people be able to obtain a legal marriage?

Say I and my roomate Tom (who doesn't exist, by the way, just an example) decide we like the legal or tax benefits of marriage, and decide to get a legal marriage to each other.
Tom and I are both straight and have no sexual or romantic interest in each other. In fact, we both like to pick up women every weekend at the local bar (without any interest in marrying them). But we both consent to this "marriage," and we're bestest of buddies and, hey, we love each other! (albeit not in a gay way).
Hey, we may be weird, but wouldn't it be prejudiced to deny us a legal "marriage"?

Should Tom and I be allowed to be legally "married" to one another?

If not, why not?

If so, seems a marriage is pretty meaningless. [/quote]
Ah, you're finally getting it! Do you think that you should be able to do that if your roommate's name were Toni? Do you think that you would? Any two straight people can do that at this very moment, but in general they don't. Why don't they? You and I both know the answer -- people want to get married for love and it's too much of a pain to get a divorce when they meet the person that they really want to marry. Certainly you see that marriage isn't pointless or you and your roommate wouldn't bother doing it. Its point is to give certain benefits to people, whether they be tax, legal, or health related.

Frankly, I think legal marriage should cease to exist (not that I think it will happen in my lifetime). However, if we are going to have legal marriage it needs to apply equally.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 23 2004, 03:29 PM']
Then in the same breath you argue that because pleasure is the motivation for animals it can be the only motivation for humans. Tsk tsk. I would expect better.



Have you ever been around a pet that knows it has done something wrong? [/quote]
humans can be distinguished from animals by our reason and intellect. Our awareness of things beyond our selves is part of this. We don't see cats sit around and discuss what makes them cats versus what makes them dogs.

Not quite the next breath. If you'll notice I included the words 'if indeed' that I had hoped would convey my disagreement with your premise. I do believe that in the great majority of cases male-male animal sexual activity relates to dominance, and in those cases where it does not then it is simply a case of gratification, much like a rat learning to push a button that gives it food.

An animal does not know it has done something wrong until it has received punishment. I have never murdered a single person, yet I am aware that it is wrong to murder. An animal does not have a concept of right or wrong, merely good or bad. Food is good, pain is bad. What causes pain must be avoided. What causes food must be sought out.
When we think of somebody who is acting like an animal, we acknowledge them giving in to their base lusts or not using their God-given intellect.

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 23 2004, 03:10 PM'] Ah, you're finally getting it!  Do you think that you should be able to do that if your roommate's name were Toni?  Do you think that you would?  Any two straight people can do that at this very moment, but in general they don't.  Why don't they?  You and I both know the answer -- people want to get married for love and it's too much of a pain to get a divorce when they meet the person that they really want to marry.  Certainly you see that marriage isn't pointless or you and your roommate wouldn't bother doing it.  Its point is to give certain benefits to people, whether they be tax, legal, or health related. 

Frankly, I think legal marriage should cease to exist (not that I think it will happen in my lifetime).  However, if we are going to have legal marriage it needs to apply equally. [/quote]
While I don't agree with you on same-sex marriage, this at least clarifies where you stand.

Marriage between a man and woman for the purpose of raising a family is a sacred thing, and the family is the building block of a healthy society.

While you would probably disagree that there is anything sacred about it, even at a purely secular level, there is considerable evidence showing that stable, intact families with a husband and wife together provide the best circumstances for raising children.
As the building block of a solid, productive society, civil society should recognize and reward this institution.
Tax benefits, etc. are NOT the purpose of marriage. They are merely rewards bestowed by civil society.

And yes, there are alot of heterosexual marriages that are jokes and travesties. Marriage is serious and sacred and should not be something cheaply or frivolously entered into, or bestowed on others.

A union between me and my imaginary pal Tom, or between Tom and Toni who just want to "hook up" for a while, then get divorced, or between two homosexuals does not constitute the definition of a marriage, and none should be recognized as such.

We have already considerably cheapened the meaning of marriage with contraception and rampant divorce.
I would argue that homosexuality is a symptom more than the root disease.

I am sure you will disagree with the above, and probably mock it as "backwards" or "religious fanaticism." But I think you should look around, and seriously ask if you think society is saner and healthier now than in times past.

You should seriously look at the teachings of the Church with an open mind, rather than with a mocking or derrogatory attitude, and while you will probably disagree, at least give it some serious thought. It all might start making more sense than you think.

Edited November 23, 2004 by Socrates

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 23 2004, 03:19 PM'] Not quite the next breath. If you'll notice I included the words 'if indeed' that I had hoped would convey my disagreement with your premise. I do believe that in the great majority of cases male-male animal sexual activity relates to dominance, and in those cases where it does not then it is simply a case of gratification, much like a rat learning to push a button that gives it food. [/quote]
And when it's female-female?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 23 2004, 04:37 PM'] While I don't agree with you on same-sex marriage, this at least clarifies where you stand.

Marriage between a man and woman for the purpose of raising a family is a sacred thing, and the family is the building block of a healthy society.

While you would probably disagree that there is anything sacred about it, even at a purely secular level, there is considerable evidence showing that stable, intact families with a husband and wife together provide the best circumstances for raising children.
As the building block of a solid, productive society, civil society should recognize and reward this institution.
Tax benefits, etc. are NOT the purpose of marriage. They are merely rewards bestowed by civil society.
[/quote]
If they aren't the purpose of marriage then it has no purpose beyond satisfying base desires. I'll here reiterate my point that if marriage's purpose were solely breeding the elderly, sterile, and childfree would not be allowed to marry.


[quote]And yes, there are alot of heterosexual marriages that are jokes and travesties.  Marriage is serious and sacred and should not be something cheaply or frivolously entered into, or bestowed on others.

A union between me and my imaginary pal Tom, or between Tom and Toni who just want to "hook up" for a while, then get divorced,  or between two homosexuals does not constitute the definition of a marriage, and none should be recognized as such.[/quote]

Actually, it does. Marriage: 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

You don't get to arbitrarily change the definition of marriage to a sacred one just because you don't like the secular definition. People who are married in a courthouse are equally as legally married as two people married in the catholic church. So Tom and Toni are equally as married as you and your partner in the eyes of the law. You have to get used to that idea.

[quote]I am sure you will disagree with the above, and probably mock it as "backwards" or "religious fanaticism."  But I think you should look around, and seriously ask if you think society is saner and healthier now than in times past.[/quote]

Yes, I do.

[quote]You should seriously look at the teachings of the Church with an open mind, rather than with a mocking or derrogatory attitude, and while you will probably disagree, at least give it some serious thought.  It all might start making more sense than you think.[/quote]

Please try not to be so patronizing in the future. Don't assume that I'm unaware of the teachings of the church (or that I've only ever looked at them with a 'closed mind') just because I disagree with them.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 23 2004, 05:48 PM'] And when it's female-female? [/quote]
Wikipedia on homosexuality in animals:
Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms; even within the same species, researchers have drawn parallels between this and homosexuality, bisexuality, intersexuality and transgender behavior in humans. The presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not 'officially' observed on a large scale until recent times, possibly due to observer bias caused by social attitudes to same-sex sexual behavior. It appears to be widespread amongst birds, mammals and the apes. Some researchers believe it to have its [u]origin in male social organization and social dominance, similar to the dominance traits shown in prison sexuality[/u].

Lesbianism:
The bonobo, which has a matriarchal society (unusual amongst apes), is a fully bisexual species -- both males and females engage in heterosexual and homosexual behavior, being noted for lesbianism in particular.


Now, if this behavior is caused by social dominance issues, of course it stands to reason that in a matriarchal society there would be incidents of female-female sexual activity. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals"]Reading further[/url] we see homosexual behavior not as a recreational or emotional activity (they are animals, after all) but a response to better ensure survival of offspring. None of which strengthens the argument that homosexuality is a natural state deserving of the same dignity as biologically productive pairings of the different sexes.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 23 2004, 05:56 PM']
You don't get to arbitrarily change the definition of marriage to a sacred one just because you don't like the secular definition.  People who are married in a courthouse are equally as legally married as two people married in the catholic church.  So Tom and Toni are equally as married as you and your partner in the eyes of the law.  You have to get used to that idea.



[/quote]
The point is that there is a higher law than the laws of America, a law that is set up to ensure the best possible outcome. To accept a perversion of that law will not make anyone's life easier, better or more fulfilled.

Edited November 24, 2004 by toledo_jesus

[Socrates]

Here is my good old secular non-Catholic, non-religious Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 10th edition (1993)'s definition of marriage.

[b]marriage[/b] \'mar-ij also 'mer-\ [ME mariage, fr OF, fr [i]marier[/i] to marry] (14c) [b]1. a :[/b] the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife ; WEDLOCK [b]c :[/b] the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family [b]2 :[/b] an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; [b]esp : [/b]the wedding ceremony and attendent festivities or formalities [b]3 :[/b] and intimate or close union <the ~ of painting and poetry- J.T. Shawcross>

There you have it folks! This was the deifinition of marriage (religious and secular)as the word existed from the 14th century into at least the 1990s!

Don't know where your defintion came from, but it probably didn't come from any dictionary published before c. 2000 (in which case the definition was changed under pressure from the gay-rights lobby)

It's the gay-rights crowd that's trying to change the definition of marriage.

Quit trying to pretend that I'm arbitrarily drawing up my own defintion of marriage to mean what I want it to mean! It's you gay rights people that are trying to do that!

Just something to set the record straight (no pun intended)!

Edited November 24, 2004 by Socrates

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 23 2004, 07:22 PM'] Wikipedia on homosexuality in animals:
Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms; even within the same species, researchers have drawn parallels between this and homosexuality, bisexuality, intersexuality and transgender behavior in humans. The presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not 'officially' observed on a large scale until recent times, possibly due to observer bias caused by social attitudes to same-sex sexual behavior. It appears to be widespread amongst birds, mammals and the apes. [b]Some researchers believe[/b] it to have its [u]origin in male social organization and social dominance, similar to the dominance traits shown in prison sexuality[/u].

Lesbianism:
The bonobo, which has a matriarchal society (unusual amongst apes), is a fully bisexual species -- both males and females engage in heterosexual and homosexual behavior, being noted for lesbianism in particular.


Now, if this behavior is caused by social dominance issues, of course it stands to reason that in a matriarchal society there would be incidents of female-female sexual activity. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals"]Reading further[/url] we see homosexual behavior not as a recreational or emotional activity (they are animals, after all) but a response to better ensure survival of offspring. None of which strengthens the argument that homosexuality is a natural state deserving of the same dignity as biologically productive pairings of the different sexes. [/quote]
So how, if it is "a response to better ensure survival of offspring", is it not a natural state?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 23 2004, 07:24 PM'] The point is that there is a higher law than the laws of America, a law that is set up to ensure the best possible outcome. To accept a perversion of that law will not make anyone's life easier, better or more fulfilled. [/quote]
The highest law in America is the Constitution. That's where the chain ends. There is no "higher law" and you won't win an argument about the legalization of something by saying that there is.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 23 2004, 08:32 PM'] So how, if it is "a response to better ensure survival of offspring", is it not a natural state? [/quote]
it's a learned behavior and not a 'default setting'.

There is a higher law than the Constitution, and it comes from God. It pervades our being and is the reason we have been fighting against legitimizing homosexuality and the like.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 23 2004, 07:28 PM'] Here is my good old secular non-Catholic, non-religious Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 10th edition (1993)'s definition of marriage.

[b]marriage[/b] \'mar-ij also 'mer-\ [ME mariage, fr OF, fr [i]marier[/i] to marry] (14c) [b]1. a :[/b] the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife ; WEDLOCK [b]c :[/b] the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family [b]2 :[/b] an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; [b]esp : [/b]the wedding ceremony and attendent festivities or formalities [b]3 :[/b] and intimate or close union <the ~ of painting and poetry- J.T. Shawcross>

There you have it folks! This was the deifinition of marriage (religious and secular)as the word existed from the 14th century into at least the 1990s!

Don't know where your defintion came from, but it probably didn't come from any dictionary published before c. 2000 (in which case the definition was changed under pressure from the gay-rights lobby)

It's the gay-rights crowd that's trying to change the definition of marriage.

Quit trying to pretend that I'm arbitrarily drawing up my own defintion of marriage to mean what I want it to mean! It's you gay rights people that are trying to do that!

Just something to set the record straight (no pun intended)! [/quote]
From [url="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage&x=20&y=20"]Merriam-Webster Online[/url]:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

Not to nitpick or anything, but most dictionaries are outdated by the time you buy them.

The English language is constantly evolving -- that's what a living language does. Dictionaries don't change their definitions because of a lobby, they change them because usage has changed. That's why the word "D'oh" is now in the dictionary when it was not several years ago.

Also, according to your definition from above even those people who are heterosexual and have a marriage of which you don't approve (Tom and Toni, for example) would still be married and I would still tell you not to try to arbitrarily change the meaning.

You said:
[quote]A union...between Tom and Toni who just want to "hook up" for a while, then get divorced...does not constitute the definition of a marriage, and none should be recognized as such.[/quote]

And under both the old and the new definition you would be wrong.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 23 2004, 07:38 PM'] There is a higher law than the Constitution, and it comes from God. [/quote]
Not as far as the laws of the United States are concerned. And don't start arguing that it should because you don't want state run religion any more than I want religion run state.

[quote]It pervades our being and is the reason we have been fighting against legitimizing homosexuality and the like.[/quote]

The like?

[Socrates]

Yes, I know that Tom and Toni's marriage would be legally recognized - I was just making the point that I don't think people they should get married for trivial reasons - that's all, and how we've trivialized marriage. I know this has no bearing on the legality of the matter. (I may have phrased this poorly originally).

And I'm sure marriage would be defined as between man and woman for the purpose of family, etc. in any dictionary prior to the "gay marriage" movement. I'm comparing centuries of common usage with a new, politically charged definition. I'm simply proving that it's the gay-rights crowd, not me, that's changing (I would say "perverting") the meaning of the word "marriage."

Got to get to work, but I'll be back.