marriage

[inked]

The insistence in the face of the data about the NATURE of marriage despite OVERWHELMING evidence from history, culture, and science ought to alert perceptive persons that the real issue is not a definition of marriage but the intent to change by a few.

Really now, if enough people complain that day and night are not defined by data should we change them too? After all, we already have Daylight Savings Time as a law? Doesn't that tell us that day/night distinctions are open to interpretation and change? Shouldn't the sad cases of porphyria be cause to change the definitions?

Where precisely and on what grounds would this line of argument ever be nonapplicable?

[Rían]

Yeah, I think I'll sign off this thread - too many other ones going on right now!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

... porphyria ...

*gets out dictionary*

Really, inked, I enjoy your vocabulary-expanding use of words, but when they're medical terms, could you please provide a parenthetical definition for us? Or else I'll start talking radar to you ... (gain, squawk, Mode 4, bins, gross filters, PD, etc.)

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Where precisely and on what grounds would this line of argument ever be nonapplicable?

When you're talking about people with feelings and rights instead of the Sun.

[inked]

Sorry, but that disease was on some building show my better half watches just last week and they characterized it as "allergic to sunshine". That's not exact, but what the hey. And, if its on TV everyone understands, Right!!!!

Pardon.

[Nurvingiel]

Okay. Actually, there is such a disease. A South African family moved to Prince Rupert BC (the city with the least sunshine in the world because of that). No worries.
My previous post still stands though.

[BeardofPants]

Please forgive me if this is a dopey comment, as I am currently writing an extremely boring paper, and my brain isn't quite up to normal functioning speed, but we're talking about the HISTORY of marriage? The LONG history? As in using this as a basis for providing the empiracle evidence for the so-called "norm" of marriage? How can we use this as an adequate basis of evidence, when the "history" of homo-sapiens is decidedly short compared to the 'existence' of homo-sapiens, within which there are no records to validate marriage? Or, to go back further, beyond homo-sapiens?

[Millane]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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

hmmm okay (this is relevant to what you were saying earlier Inked) lets just say hypothetically 99% of humans are not midgets and 1% are, are we to infer that midgets are not human?
you can also put relationships in your neat little argument instead of marriage
does this mean that homosexuals cant take place in a relationship?
Im sure one of Socrates arguments in the Gorgias about morality can be used here, ill mull it over a little

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

i think brownjenkins nailed this one with the quote in his sig...
now a couple of questions, someone asked this earlier but i didnt really see any answer. Inked you stated that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, and a few others put to start a family etc, well this certainly excludes homosexual couples (without adoption of course) but it also leaves out people who want a hetero marriage who are sterile for one reason or another and have the same chance of making a baby homosexuals have. Should they be allowed to marry?
Also although it may seem obvious to some people (not too me though ) for the people who are against homosexuals marrying, what consequences are you afraid of????????????

[Nurvingiel]

This is Brownie's sig:

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.
~ Thomas Jefferson

I was trying to get at that earlier. Thanks Tom!

[Rían]

Nurvi and Millane - good points about the personal aspect of this topic. We tend to get lost sometimes in the discussion side of things (which is also vitally important, IMO, unless you want things to be decided randomly or un-thought-out-fully), but lose track of the human side.

Just to reiterate what I've said many, many times - I think homosexuals are people just like anyone else. I think they're just as valuable and important as anyone else. Some are nice, some aren't, some are intelligent, some aren't, some have brown hair, some don't - just like everyone else. However, since I believe that to ACT on homosexual tendencies is VERY harmful, it would be very UNLOVING on my part to not say so, when it's brought up in conversations like this. It would be a failure of love on my part to not share my beliefs on this issue. In fact, I know I'll take a lot of flack for my beliefs here! I would want any of you guys to share your beliefs about something I'm doing that you think is harmful, while still respecting my choices and beliefs. I act the same way towards you guys that I wish you would act towards me. And believe me, I've had people tell me that my Christian beliefs are harmful! AND I APPRECIATE THEIR HEART BEHIND THEIR MESSAGE! even tho I disagree with them. And I think this should probably move over to the homosexual thread, where I made a coupla posts on the last few pages that addressed all the questions on this thread, if anyone's interested

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Millane

hmmm okay (this is relevant to what you were saying earlier Inked) lets just say hypothetically 99% of humans are not midgets and 1% are, are we to infer that midgets are not human?

alright, bucko, since you quoted me right before your comment - where in the WORLD did I (or anyone else) say homosexuals aren't human?!?! Back it up or take it down - that's a disgusting insinuation! and I resent having my name linked to that insinuation in any way whatsoever!!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

alright, bucko, since you quoted me right before your comment - where in the WORLD did I (or anyone else) say homosexuals aren't human?!?! Back it up or take it down - that's a disgusting insinuation! and I resent having my name linked to that insinuation in any way whatsoever!!

where did you get that from? he didnt say anything about anyone saying homosexuals were not humans. he was using the parallel argument of midgets to non midgets to make a point. you are mixing the examples here. the parallel is to gay relationships and marriages.

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Please forgive me if this is a dopey comment, as I am currently writing an extremely boring paper, and my brain isn't quite up to normal functioning speed, but we're talking about the HISTORY of marriage? The LONG history? As in using this as a basis for providing the empiracle evidence for the so-called "norm" of marriage? How can we use this as an adequate basis of evidence, when the "history" of homo-sapiens is decidedly short compared to the 'existence' of homo-sapiens, within which there are no records to validate marriage? Or, to go back further, beyond homo-sapiens?

ding ding! give that girl a cigar. someone finally brought up the obvious here.

[Millane]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

alright, bucko, since you quoted me right before your comment - where in the WORLD did I (or anyone else) say homosexuals aren't human?!?! Back it up or take it down - that's a disgusting insinuation! and I resent having my name linked to that insinuation in any way whatsoever!!

oh my god where is a smilie to display the fear im feeling right now, **** i was using Inked methodology in his post on the other page

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?

your post kinda seemed relevent to the trends that Inked was talking about and so on...
sorry i didnt mean it to sound like anyone believed homosexuals werent human it was more to question Inkeds methodology as to why homosexual marriage was not marriage.

[katya]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

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

Were you talking to me, hon? I'd suggest doing a search, but try to include something like "historical" or who knows what'll come up.
But seriously, we're not really talking about homosexuality here, are we?
I want to know more about various marriage customs and traditions (no, not like exchanging rings and stuff. Well, maybe) past and present, and to examine as best as possible what exactly marriage is.
I should stop playing so much PS2 or I'll get behind on my 'mooting. I have to get away from the 'moot or I'll never finish that game before I have to return it. I should just stop sleeping.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

ding ding! give that girl a cigar. someone finally brought up the obvious here.

And the even MORE obvious - how are you to use ANYTHING that happened in pre-history as evidence EITHER WAY?! Why even bring up pre-history? (except to say we don't know what happened! No surprise there! ) Why don't we go on what we DO have as history. And it's overwhelmingly that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Originally Posted by Millane

sorry i didnt mean it to sound like anyone believed homosexuals werent human it was more to question Inkeds methodology as to why homosexual marriage was not marriage.

OK. *takes deep breaths* I'm sorry I flew off the handle like that, Millane - I should have known better, since I've posted with you a fair amount - and thank you for your PM - that meant a lot to me! I really like you, Millane, and really like your thoughtful attitude - you have great and insightful questions! It's just that on this subject, I get a lot of false and mean accusations thrown at me, and that's one of them and it's so, SO untrue that I think anything remotely like that! So I just blew up I should have known better and given you the benefit of the doubt. I'm sorry.

I'll re-look at your post tomorrow and respond a little better - it's time to read to the kids and put them to bed.

[inked]

Hey, Troops,
Lots of allegations flying around that are emotion based and without any evidentiary basis.

First, Nurv suggested sociological and anthropological data as a means of identifying marriage. I followed that with the observation that no one has refuted that the data indicate human wide definition of marriage as between genders despite variation in mode of marriage. Can't help the data doesn't match allowing same gender marriage as a normative state for humanity as far as we know. It's just the data.

If one argues that the data from genetics (which is nonexistent though widely assumed to be evidentiary and to utilize the same opens the door for the same basis of spirituality) and draws conclusions based on that, I am not maligning anyone when I do the same.

The real motive behind changing the definition of marriage for the thread discussion has been admitted however:
"When you're talking about people with feelings and rights instead of the Sun."

So now that we have converted to an emotion based argument and discarded the data based one, I'm hung out to dry because I pointed out the facts of human experience broadly speaking. No one's refuted the fact.

I don't think emotion based argument will answer to data. It is quite apparent that it doesn't want to in regard to the institution of marriage.

So that's the end of the line.

Now to address the lack of reproduction brought up by someone (sorry I can't recall whom). The accident of failure to reproduce in a given marriage does not negate that the purpose of marriage is ensure the procreation of babies. It is an intention of marriage not fulfilled due to a multitude of possible causes. It actually affects about 10% of couples choosing to attempt conception. That components absence does not invalidate the other purposes of marriage in social terms. We have high tech modes of attempting correction, but check out history for alternative modes (surrogate children, surrogate parenting, adoption, etc). In today's world, some couples elect not to have children but still have the marriage. So marriage is more than simple provision for children in the begetting or rearing.

Notice too the response of individuals with porphyria described. The world did not adjust the definition of day and night to suit them. They adapted to the dictates of their situation. This is analogous to civil unions for homosexuals with regard to the legal benefits. But day is not turned to night in the culture. Same sex individuals are not "married". They may be committed etc, but it is not what humanity has termed marriage based on evidence.

Did I miss any points that wanted answering?

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And the even MORE obvious - how are you to use ANYTHING that happened in pre-history as evidence EITHER WAY?! Why even bring up pre-history? (except to say we don't know what happened! No surprise there! ) Why don't we go on what we DO have as history. And it's overwhelmingly that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Yep, it's true. We don't know what went on in pre-history, not really. We have some ideas, but they're just ideas. However, my bug up the arse, if you will, was that Inked was implying that all the evidence pointed towards marriage between a man, and a woman, and that that was the be all, and end all. History is only a small "slice" if you will, of what we've been through in terms of social development, and as we well know, it's been subject to change. Marriage has not always been styled after the nuclear family. More often than not in early history, you have instances of multiple partnerships. These are exampled in the bible as well. Now, to go off on a tangent, from an evolutionary point of view, humans are interesting. Sexual dimorphism in mammals is generally equated with an alpha-male, multiple female grouping, and as far as biology is concerned, whilst there is not much left in a way of sexual dimorphism - certainly nothing compared to our earlier Australopithecines - there *is* still some remnant left in that males still tend to be bigger than females. Certainly, in early pre-history, we can postulate that extended families may have been more useful for our ancestors to have co-habited in for survival, and certainly we have examples of early polynesians practising multiple-partnerships, both alpha-male, and matriarchal. The fact is that trying to swing a nuclear family as normal for all of history, ever, is a far-fetched notion, especially when the evidence points to the contrary.

And that was a bit of a deviation from my earlier point that we can't realistically postulate the "normal" marriage for homo-sapiens based on a small time-slice...

[inked]

BoP, produce the evidence for marriage being between the same-sex even in the little slice of history we know about. I know it gets buggy, but if you want to argue data, you can't selectively ignore the elephant in the anthill when you're trying to find the worker with a red dot on it, now can you?

edited for typo

[BeardofPants]

Who said I was arguing for same-sex marriages? I was arguing against the nuclear-family basis. ::shrug:: I'm more for the extended family argument myself. Although I'm certainly not arguing against the same-sex liaisons cos that would be silly.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Yep, it's true. We don't know what went on in pre-history, not really. We have some ideas, but they're just ideas.

OK, we agree on that one

However, my bug up the arse, if you will, was that Inked was implying that all the evidence pointed towards marriage between a man, and a woman, and that that was the be all, and end all.

I don't think he implied that at all; I thought he said that the vast majority of what we DO know was that marriage was between a man and a woman.

History is only a small "slice" if you will, of what we've been through in terms of social development, and as we well know, it's been subject to change.

But not in the point that we've been discussing - that the norm at any point in recorded history has been man/woman marriage, altho there are pockets in time and place where other forms have been not uncommon.

Marriage has not always been styled after the nuclear family. More often than not in early history, you have instances of multiple partnerships.

I just haven't heard anything about this - "more often than not"?! Can you give more details, or are these just conjectures based on finds in prehistory, such as village remnants?

... certainly nothing compared to our earlier Australopithecines -

But how in the world do you know that "our earlier Australopithecines" didn't have man/woman marriage forms? This is just pure conjecture, isn't it, based upon that there are some mammals that are that way? How can this be anything but conjecture?

Certainly, in early pre-history, we can postulate that extended families may have been more useful for our ancestors to have co-habited in for survival, and certainly we have examples of early polynesians practising multiple-partnerships, both alpha-male, and matriarchal.

One can postulate whatever one wishes. And for the polynesian examples, are you saying that their forms were widely practiced throughout the world, or they were just examples, altho small in percentage, that point to different types of marriage forms?

The fact is that trying to swing a nuclear family as normal for all of history, ever, is a far-fetched notion, especially when the evidence points to the contrary.

"Evidence points to the contrary"? Do you mean a small amount of evidence, or are you claiming that most evidence points that way? Or are you claiming some or most conjectural evidence points that way? And again, I didn't get that impression at ALL - I think inked was only speaking to history, and not trying to make any claims as to pre-history, from what I remember.

And that was a bit of a deviation from my earlier point that we can't realistically postulate the "normal" marriage for homo-sapiens based on a small time-slice...

So we need to make statements like "from what we DO know, which it is wise to stick to, marriage between a man and a woman is by far the norm. We can't postulate what marriage was in pre-historic times, for the simple reason that it's pre-historic! (well, again, we can postulate anything, but I don't think it's profitable.) We CAN make conclusions from historical evidence and modern times.