marriage

[inked]

Nurv,

you wrote, "Studying marriage accross cultures is completely fascinating!"

Well, now time for a little empiricism in your study and extraction of information.

What is the dominant form or Marriage across cultures? Is it between the sexes or is it same sex? What percentage of each?

You indicated above that marriage was a committment formed for the the perpetuation of family and the society in which it was practiced. How many children are born of inter-gender marriages? How many to the insignificantly few same-gender liasons?

What conclusions can you base on the data?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[Nurvingiel]

Eek. That comment was based on some lectures we had on marriage in Anthropology 101. That was two years ago and I didn't bring the textbook with me to Sweden. (It's called "Mirror of Humanity" IIRC)

I don't remember very much. I only remember that there were different examples of how different cultures evaluated marriage and what the purposes were. I don't remember all, but the purposes were one or more of the following: (in no particular order)

Love
Procreation
Form a political alliance
Form a financial partnership
Form a team for better work capabilities
Stable family environment
Others

That's all I have for you buddy. This was our class thinking of examples based on our textbook and case studies IIRC. We thought of at least 10 or 12, why can't I think of the rest!

EDIT: I said it was fascinating because I really enjoyed those lectures, and I think the subject is interesting.

EDIT2: It's interesting to note that the gender and/or number of people involved doesn't affect how to achieve the above goals, but rather it's how the culture perceives the goals should be obtained. (Ex. If one of the goals is procreation at least one man and at least one woman would be involved.)

[inked]

Well, Nurv, that'll have to do, I suppose !

It is a great resounding lie that the presence of one occasional aberration negates the whole argument that experience and nature are not guides to human institutions such as marriage.

This argument when applied to the barons of technology is used to argue they should not exist as they do the body politic harm in some fashion. Yet the same line of argument for same-sex "marriage is refusted as nonapplicable.

in your study, Nurv, is marriage an inter-gender event or a same-sex event?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Well, Nurv, that'll have to do, I suppose !

Maybe the textbook was "Mirror to Humanity". It was really good anyway - I kept it (in Canada).

It is a great resounding lie that the presence of one occasional aberration negates the whole argument that experience and nature are not guides to human institutions such as marriage.

I don't get what you're saying here - I wasn't condemning any form of marriage - stright or gay, monogamous or polygamous, etc.

This argument when applied to the barons of technology is used to argue they should not exist as they do the body politic harm in some fashion. Yet the same line of argument for same-sex "marriage is refusted as nonapplicable.

Again I miss your point, because it was tied to the first one. Barons of technology? What shouldn't exist?

in your study, Nurv, is marriage an inter-gender event or a same-sex event?

It wasn't a study, it was a class brainstorm, moderated by our professor, a noted anthropologist. He added a lot of ideas which we never would have thought of, and which I now forget. IIRC, he said the ideas we finnaly agreed on actually occured in some culture at some point.
We did not specify the gender of the people in the brainstorm because that was not the point.
That's why I said this:

It's interesting to note that the gender and/or number of people involved doesn't affect how to achieve the above goals, but rather it's how the culture perceives the goals should be obtained. (Ex. If one of the goals is procreation at least one man and at least one woman would be involved.)

[inked]

Nurv,

If 99% of human experience is that marriage is an inter-gender event, does the evidence support same-sex "marriage"?

If 99% of human sexual behaviour is same species, does 1% bestiality justify human-goat "marriage"?

If successful barons of finance are inherently bad for society and constitute <1%, why doen't all behaviour at <1% get treated the same?

[Nurvingiel]

No it doesn't (and if you cite 99%, I assume you mean over the history of time, which introduces complexities).

It says that cultures usually decided that they liked inter-gender marriage the best. That makes no moral inferences same-sex marriage whatsoever.

But this thread shouldn't be an "is gay marriage okay" debate, because we already have a thread for that, where we discuss the topic ad nauseum.

EDIT: Oops, I misread your first sentence. I was not making a commentary on the legitimacy of same-sex marriage in my original post anyway.

[inked]

Nurv,
What does the study of marriage in all available cultures for which we have data say (and I think LOUDLY) about the nature of marriage on the basis of hte empiric evidence?

[Nurvingiel]

It says most people have monogamous, inter-gender marriages. Data (at least in this case) says nothing about morality, if that's what you were getting at.


... should we wander over to the GLB thread?

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

It says most people have monogamous, inter-gender marriages. Data (at least in this case) says nothing about morality, if that's what you were getting at.


... should we wander over to the GLB thread?

inked wasn't the one who brought the gay marriage issue INTO this thread... he only addressed it once it came here.

[inked]

Nurv,

This thread is to discuss the nature of marriage. I am merely pointing out that the study of marriage shows it to be a certain way. The data define the institution empirically. Therefore the onus to change the definition of marriage is on those who propose to change it. It does not matter that they propose heterosexual or homosexual changes.

Marriage has a clearly defined role in human cultures across time and space and religions and every assault brought against it in known data sources such as you have studied (and there have been multitudinous attempts) have not succeeded in accomplishing that.

Why, then, should the definition of marriage be changed?

[Nurvingiel]

Well I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. Actually, I guess we're not off-topic at all, so onwards!

There is no clear definition of marriage. That was another thing we discovered in our class brainstorm. The definition, if there is one, changes over time and culture. So why not change the social norm in Western society (if you are a member and would like to see it change, as I am)? There is no precedent that says you cannot change the definition, in fact, the precedent is opposite. The definition has been fairly fluid in the past. (ie. inter-racial marriages)

Edit: And two answer your second question, I think it should be changed to extend the right of marriage to gay people. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, marriage is a right.

[inked]

Nurv,

The onus of proof is on you.

The variations in forms of marriage DOES NOT negate the institution of marriage in cross-cultural settings and chronologically.

Why do you propose that a change is necessary in the cases you cite?

Empirically, you are wrong.

[Nurvingiel]

But what I was getting at is...

Originally Posted by inked

Nurv,

The onus of proof is on you.

I don't feel you have to prove anything to change the already fluid definition of marriage. As I stated previously, the precedent has been set already that the definition changes with advancing culture.
I will make comments largely on Canadian marriage laws, because I don't know that much on the subject of marriage laws in countries besides my own.

The variations in forms of marriage DOES NOT negate the institution of marriage in cross-cultural settings and chronologically.

Why do you propose that a change is necessary in the cases you cite?

Empirically, you are wrong.

Are you suggesting we limit the rights of human beings based on data alone? What about law? What about compassion?
You would tell two people who love each other they cannot marry because of historical numbers? What about all the other awful things we've done in history - rampant racism, witch burnings etc. They happily do not define our current laws and customs. Why should the treatment of homosexual people be based on past prejudices and/or lack of evidence of gay marriage (which as I stated earlier in this post is actually not important anyway).

[inked]

Nurv,

What I would say is that we have a transcultural, transsocietal, transchronicity definition that has served the human race in all known cultures.
Why should it change?
If you wish me to accept the allegation that homosexuality is genetic on the basis of non-existent data, that seems to be an argument from data. Why, then, is my argument from data (and overwhelming data that you adduced) considered invalid?

By the by, did you see the cover of TIME alleging the existence of a "God gene"? I no more accept that paucity of sugggestive data from an inadequate sample than I do the "homosexual gene". This is bad science in both areas.

But the data on marriage are extensive and replete and concurred in by many realms of study.

If (alleged) data is good for one area, why is established. rock solid data on the inter-gender nature of 99+% definition of marriage inadequate?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Why should it change?

see my new sig

i think in the end the change would do little or no real harm, and might do a lot to promote attitudes of tolerance... much like the change on interracial marriage... which was once just as foreign an idea to the general population

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Nurv,

What I would say is that we have a transcultural, transsocietal, transchronicity definition that has served the human race in all known cultures.
Why should it change?

Oh I see what you meant now. You could have said "accross culture, society and time" but it's all good.
Gay marriage should be legal in Canada (and is already, in some provinces listed later) because marriage is a right granted to all adults to marry one person (at a time). It is now up to the provinces to change their marriage laws, because the Charter is more important than provincial law (IIRC).
However, gay marriage is already legal in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, Québec, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and the Yukon Territory. I actually should have pointed this out before, because the definition of marriage has already changed here! (Heh, that's slightly important. )
Source here.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on gay marriage.
I actually have a copy of the Charter, and I didn't bring it to Sweden with me. Otherwise I'd give you an exact quote. I had a hard time finding the Charter itself.

If you wish me to accept the allegation that homosexuality is genetic on the basis of non-existent data, that seems to be an argument from data. Why, then, is my argument from data (and overwhelming data that you adduced) considered invalid?

The data is not "non-existant". The 'born that way' and the 'choice' side both have yet to be proven. Our knowledge of the human briain is scant at best.
However, whether it is a choice or not, gay people still have the right to get married in Canada.

By the by, did you see the cover of TIME alleging the existence of a "God gene"? I no more accept that paucity of sugggestive data from an inadequate sample than I do the "homosexual gene". This is bad science in both areas.

But the data on marriage are extensive and replete and concurred in by many realms of study.

If (alleged) data is good for one area, why is established. rock solid data on the inter-gender nature of 99+% definition of marriage inadequate?

If the theory is correct (which is certainly possible), it is not genetic, but rather a development in the brain akin to handedness. I didn't see the TIME article, so I cannot comment on it.

Let me ask another way. Just because everyone has done something one way, is that a reason we should not change?

The reason why I comment only on Canadian law is becauase I don't know enough about marriage laws in other countries. I'm just glad that I live in a country with liberal laws. Now we just need to lower the voting age to 16, but that's another thread.

[katya]

Ah! I was at my dad's and I missed this fascinating discussion! I'll have to catch up after I go play Playstation.
I heard once that some pagans were really into same-sex relationships, holding it in an even higher position than heterosexual. That's all I know about that....
I love all you guys!

[Nurvingiel]

Really? Who? What? Where? I'm curious.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

There is no clear definition of marriage. That was another thing we discovered in our class brainstorm. The definition, if there is one, changes over time and culture.

Well, if by "clear definition" you mean that the definition is not written in the sky or on a mountain somewhere, you're right, but I think inked has a point - the vast, VAST majority of marriages have been defined as man/woman - across cultures, time, and whatever else he said (what was that word?) And I think a class will "discover" whatever their professor with an agenda wants them to discover - frankly, that discovery sounds as pc-motivated and untrue as the "discovery" that the differences between men and women were only there because we give boys trucks and guns to play with, and women dolls ... Thank goodness that silly idea has finally been abandoned now!

(I don't mean to be disrespectful, but really! No clear definition? Well, how about a clear trend, then!)

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, if by "clear definition" you mean that the definition is not written in the sky or on a mountain somewhere, you're right, but I think inked has a point - the vast, VAST majority of marriages have been defined as man/woman - across cultures, time, and whatever else he said (what was that word?)

I know, my point to that was essentially 1. So? and 2. In Canada the definition has changed in recent history. (Technically in 1985 IIRC when we wrote the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)

And I think a class will "discover" whatever their professor with an agenda wants them to discover - frankly, that discovery sounds as pc-motivated and untrue as the "discovery" that the differences between men and women were only there because we give boys trucks and guns to play with, and women dolls ... Thank goodness that silly idea has finally been abandoned now!

Our professor didn't have an agenda. He wanted us to think about all possibilities. Our discussion didn't have anything to do with gay/straight marriage, we were just discussing cultural reasons for marriage.
I just can't explain it better. The whole thing took place two years ago, and I have no recollection of anyone bringing up gay marriage.
I just thought, hey, look at all the different meanings/definitions/what-have-you of marriage across cultures. Maybe it's not a stretch to say that two gay people could get married, since there isn't a clear definition of marriage. What I mean by no clear definition is marriage is described differently by different cultures.
And hey, the definition has already changed in Canada.

(I don't mean to be disrespectful, but really! No clear definition? Well, how about a clear trend, then!)

Clear trend, sure! You didn't sound disrespectful anyway. That's what I get for making a reference to a lecture I attended two years ago. My original thought was that this thread was interesting.
Now you know what I think about gay marriage ad nauseum. But I'm drawn to intelligent debates, especially ones where I feel very strongly, like trying to stop the limitations of human rights.