Definition of “marriage” has always been in flux.

Posted by Les on Friday, February 27, 2004 at 09:14 AM. Read 7362 times. Tags:
{name} pic

C.W. Nevius of SFGate.com has a really good article on the uproar over gay marriages and how they supposedly threaten to undermine the “traditional definition of marriage” in this country. President Bush is quoted as saying “Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society,” and yet if you take a good look at the history of marriage it’s clear that such serverances have been many and varied throughout history.

Nevius points out that back during the early history of America (1700-1800s) a married woman gave up many of the “rights” she enjoyed as a single person upon taking her vows.  She could no longer own property or sign contracts and any money earned outside of the home had to be turned over to her husband. On the plus side, she didn’t have to pay taxes.  In many ways a married woman was the property of her husband and this didn’t change until the the latter-half of the 19th Century, but change it did.  Mixed race marriages weren’t legal in any state until California changed their laws in 1948 and it was 19 years more before the Supreme Court made it nation-wide. In many states it was still illegal for mixed race couples to marry until the year I was born (1967), but change it did. More interesting still is what you get when you look closely at just what the Bible suggests about marriage:

Marriage’s lineage a bit convoluted

“It is really much more complex in religious perspective than you might think,’’ says Tolbert, the George Atkinson Professor for Biblical Studies at the Pacific School of Religion. “What the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) suggests as a general model for marriage is polygamy. You look at someone like Solomon who had 200 wives and 600-and-some concubines. Or Abraham, who had his first child by his wife’s slave. It sounds as if it was quite normal.’’

Tolbert, who is also the executive director for the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry, points out that marriage didn’t even become a sacrament of the church “until the 12th century. For the first 1,200 years (A.D.) in Europe there were civil unions by town or village government.’’

Nor does the New Testament offer much help. In fact, by some selective readings it sounds as if the Bible has mixed views of marriage. As Tolbert says, Jesus says very little about marriage, and both he and Paul were single men. And Paul, at least, recommended chastity.

“Marriage is not a sin,’’ says Paul in First Corinthians, “but it is better to be unmarried.’’

“The Bible is an incredibly important sacred icon in our culture,’’ says Tolbert. “But I just think a lot of people don’t read it.’’

That not many people read the Bible they supposedly follow is obvious. I issued a challenge awhile back for anyone to list a single valid reason that wasn’t religious in nature as to why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry and never got anyone to take me up on that challenge. That challenge still stands.

Comments:

Page 14 of 14 pages « First  <  12 13 14

Don United States Posted on 11/02/2006 at 10:10 AM

Don pic

Let me put it to you this way, itdontmatter. My mother is 82 years old and is a beautiful doll. Even at her age, she is drop dead gorgeous, a stunning beauty; mentally, she is sharp as tack, very limber and active, and she looks about my age. Wherever we go together, every one thinks she is my wife i.e. we are married. I am not joking.

Yes, I could get offended, but I just blow that social innuendo crap off as nothing of value. In all honesty, other people do not care. All other people want is your money and/or your vote, and to do as little as possible to get both.  People in general do not give a flying crap about you, me, or anyone else, who is your wife, your friend, your mother, or lover, they just do not care. 

You have to understand the human beast. It is all about ME, and if you ain’t me, then go to hell. Therefore, I mostly think that society is not to be blamed for being the animals that they are, but rather our own perspectives that can be adjusted to reality.

Don

Don United States Posted on 11/02/2006 at 10:33 AM

Don pic

itdontmatter:

In hospitals it is not uncommon for family members to exhibit affection, such as hand holding, hugging, and kissing in order to comfort each other.

Don: But even so as I have been to hospitals, and in such times of people showing affection, I look away, as I am embarrassed, and they deserve their privacy. Straight or not, it does not make any difference to me. It is possible to misinterpret other people, thinking they care about something when they don’t.

However, I certainly would not lie about it. Sue the crap out of the entire hospital, if at all possible on the slightest damage.  They are supposed to be professionals, not babies in white gowns, so I hold them to their own standard.

Don

itdontmatter United States Posted on 11/02/2006 at 11:00 AM

itdontmatter pic

Well I just think differently. If a person says to me, you can take this pile cash or a heart full of pride, I will take the cash.  If a person says here is a bundle of rights, or you can take a label.  I will take the bundle rights.

We certainly are very different.

… people vomit labels all over the place, and if you are trying to “un-load” the English language of innuendos you will NEVER succeed.

I am not trying to do anything to the English language, I was speaking about your hypothetical LAW (that I had heard others also mention) that would reserve the word ‘marriage’ to refer only to straight unions.  I have absolutely no problem with the word ‘marriage’, my problem would be if LAWS are made where straight unions are called “marriages” and a different word (and possibly different law) is used for gay unions.

A great example of gay unions not being equal to straight marriages is in Britain, where gay unions are called “Civil Partnerships”.  In Britain, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and “Civil Partnerships” are not the equal of “marriage”.  Britain also does not recognize gay marriages performed in other countries. 

Canada is an example of how it is correctly done, the law makes no distinction between straight and gay marriages.

itdontmatter United States Posted on 11/02/2006 at 11:11 AM

itdontmatter pic

Don; You certainly are very correct that we think differently; whatever.

Consigliere United States Posted on 11/02/2006 at 01:05 PM

Consigliere pic

Don:

I’m not an attorney

...I’m just talking is all.

That has been glaringly apparent for some time. 

An apropos old saw has many variations going back to the Bible.  The gist of it was captured in modern language best by Mike Dikta:

If you’re not that smart keep your mouth shut because the worst thing you could do is to open your mouth and confirm it.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

itdontmatter United States Posted on 11/02/2006 at 01:50 PM

itdontmatter pic

Included in those other documents should have been an AHCD.  That allowed you visitation privileges.

The documents included an AHCD, a copy of which had been put into his records when he was admitted before surgery.  Our family physician (who knows that we are partners) also has copies of our AHCDs.  Our family physician was not involved in the surgery.

Consigliere United States Posted on 11/02/2006 at 01:59 PM

Consigliere pic

The documents included an AHCD

Then there was no reason to lie.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

Don United States Posted on 11/02/2006 at 03:31 PM

Don pic

itdontmatter:

The documents included an AHCD, a copy of which had been put into his records when he was admitted before surgery.  Our family physician (who knows that we are partners) also has copies of our AHCDs.  Our family physician was not involved in the surgery.

Don:

If your family doctor gives your relationship support, you might have him make a note of it in the medical file that was delivered to the hospital, of what you could get a copy. In your situation, take all the support you can get. When you go out to fight a giant, you had better take all your tools. What can I say; learning is on going, we learn from experience and apply what we have learned.

If your private doctor does not have any problem, the hospital should not either, and I certainly would want that noted in my file. He could say your relationship is therapeutic, and it would be a fact, even more so for the hospital to honor your presents.

itdontmatter:

Don; You certainly are very correct that we think differently; whatever.

Don: pride v. cash, I can make all my own pride at my choice better than what others can give to me, so I will take the cash.

A bundle of rights v. a label, a label is nothing but words, rights are tangible in law, no comparison. It is like telling a prisoner he is FREE (as a label) but his door stays locked 24-7.

You do not want to get married, as a label, you want the rights to control your partners assesses for mutual advantages, to make decisions on the other persons behalf when necessary, and have access to any social benefits.  However, chances are good that your taxes would go up. If you list out exactly what it is that you want, you more than likely will find you already have it, or can get it without much problems.

If you are looking to control society—good luck on that quest, governments have a very hard time controling society and they have all the big guns.

one word means same sex union and the other word means oposite sex union, so what. We have over 450 thousand words in the English language and growning, and you want to get stuck on “one” word?

Don

Don United States Posted on 11/02/2006 at 04:18 PM

Don pic

Itdontmatter, you also have to understasnd that people in the USA have this ficticious model they are living that is just as ambigious and insane as a drunkard that does not know he is drunk. You interject a new, or different, idea into their head, and they run around as piss ants on a gd speck of dust in the cosmos, without a clue of what is going on, and worse yet they do not even want to find out.

The American family has this nebulas dream about their children, and no gay, Muslim, Arab, Mexican, black, atheist, scientist, Jew, or a Catholic is going to bust it up.  Most Americans think the earth was created 6,000 years ago, a virgin can have a baby, now you want to change the definition of the married, and then get upset about it when it does not happen?

The last thing you want to promote, and you are promoting, is your union is just as good as married straight people. That is like saying blacks are just as good as whites. In so doing whites are elevated perpetually beyond the black’s reach. It is a real word game, a real scam of the mind that people get sucked into.

The laws do not look at blacks or whites other than the rights involved, so that entire mental fraud is bypassed. Same thing with marriage who cares what you call your union. Words are notorious to change their definitions every few years anyways, fads come and go, so what.

Don

itdontmatter United States Posted on 11/02/2006 at 10:06 PM

itdontmatter pic

“The documents included an AHCD”

Then there was no reason to lie.

At that point it was much easier to allow them to continue their belief that I was his brother rather than correcting their belief and potentially causing a confrontation that would cause my partner even greater stress.  Yes, we might legally be in the right, but we can’t afford to pay the lawyer any more money.  Also, we are in Virginia, where sodomy laws are still on the books (and I think that it is still illegal to sell alcohol to a homosexual).

LuckyJohn19 Australia Posted on 11/03/2006 at 03:36 AM

LuckyJohn19 pic

sodomy laws are still on the books

Even in Tassie they’ve repealed the sodomy laws.
‘Even in Tassie‘? - there are various jokes about the backwardness of Tasmanians (I grew up there) including two-headed relatives caused by inter-breeding and the one about, what’s the definition of foreplay in Tassie? Are you awake mum?
AmeriKa - the land of the free. That’s a joke too, right?  LOL

 Signature 

I’ve discovered that it all boils down to brain wiring: your brain is wired to worship magic or it isn’t, either it’s wired to utilize logic or it isn’t, either it’s analytical of myths or it isn’t.

itdontmatter United States Posted on 11/03/2006 at 01:20 PM

itdontmatter pic

Even in Tassie they’ve repealed the sodomy laws.

Although the US Supreme court recently ruled that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, this does not mean that state sodomy laws are repealed.  There also is no guarantee that past Supreme Court decisions will hold forever.  On Tuesday, South Dakota voters will vote whether to uphold a law passed by the legislature that bans all abortions except to save a pregnant women’s life, which is deliberately in defiance of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Page 14 of 14 pages « First  <  12 13 14

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Dubya's dirty little secret?

Previous entry: God Hates Shrimp

<< Back to main