Legal restrictions of interracial marriage was a revision to millenia of human history. Race had never been part of the definition of marriage, so the efforts to ban it were revisionistic not an effort to conserve and protect marriage as an institution. Of course, same-sex marriage is revisionistic, also overthrowing the definition of marriage for all of human history. And this is, ironically, the actual parallel between the two.
Opponents of same-sex marriage aren't seeking to ban any practice of common law well-established in human history, such as was the case in banning interracial marriage. It was a revision of current law, just as the efforts to legalize same-sex marriage are revisionistic and revolutionary. In both cases, those that sought to protect the institution of marriage from revision are consistent in the efforts to keep marriage from being fundamentally changed, to maintain a definition well-established in law.
Previously:
Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage: Why the analogy fails.
It is not true that race has never been part of the definition of marriage. The Old Testament of the Bible strictly forbids the Jews from marrying women of other tribes. This is nothing new.
ReplyDeleteJews had no problem recognizing other people's marriages as marriages. For example Catholics recognize natural marriage, not just marriage between two Catholics. Not all marriages are Sacraments within the Church, for example a Catholic may marry a Jewish person or even an atheist. Marriage may be blessed, but not in Sacramental form since both can not give each other the Sacrament.
ReplyDeleteCatholics also recognize all marriages, with the term natural marriage in their canon laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_marriage
"Natural marriage is the name given in Catholic Church canon law to the lawful union of a man and a woman from any type of religious background. Being defined in canon 1055, it is a legal pre-requisite to sacramental marriage or Catholic marriage."
PF: It is not true that race has never been part of the definition of marriage. The Old Testament of the Bible strictly forbids the Jews from marrying women of other tribes. This is nothing new.
ReplyDeleteUh, reread what Beckwith wrote, PF. You're only reinforcing his point as to why such marriages were still within the definition of marriage, while same-sex unions were not.
So we only go by the Judeo-Christian tradition? Because there have been societies that allow gay marriage... and animal marriage for that matter.
ReplyDeleteAnswer me this: who can hermaphrodites marry?
Personal Failure brought up an example in Judaism as a contradiction to a trend perceived (but not really true) to the article posted.
ReplyDeleteOn Opine, we've posted examples from many religions from exotic African tribal religions, Buddhism, American Indians, Wiccan, etc...
Feel free to bring up examples if what you think are contradictions. I've been looking for a long while for examples of cultures that...
1) Considered a homosexual relationship with the same term and recognition as a marriage. We have compromises on the table today as Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships and Reciprocal Beneficiaries which would be the same thing and they are accepted in many states.
2) Recognized that same homosexual relationship as a same-sex relationship, and not a relationship with one of the people pretending to be the other gender. That is officially available to people today in some states and nations by going through the trouble of having a complete sex change.
To be honest, since none of those compromises have been seriously accepted by the homosexual community meeting their demands as gay-marriage, then those kinds of historic examples would not qualify as examples of gay-marriage in my book either.
I think I'm only being fair.
Ginx Fair question. What do you think? Should hermaphrodites be allowed to marry either sex of their choosing or do they have to assign themselves? There are multiple conditions that are linked with being 'inter-sex'. There is ethical debate on what to do especially at birth, one doesn't really know how or which sexual organs may or may not develop. What if the parents assign the wrong sex?
ReplyDeleteI think what matters most is that every child is loved by both its mother and father and we as a society support that concept. Considering we know where babies come (heterosexual activity between one woman and one man), there really shouldn't be much controversy to give a name to a healthy relationship between a mother and a father committed to loving their children.
I find it interesting that nature/God created a scenario that flies in the face of the model you are presenting as not only the default, but also only acceptable expression of sexual love. Marriage is not about procreation, otherwise you would also oppose barren women or sterile men from getting married. Instead, it is about two things:
ReplyDelete1. Biblical prejudice
2. Private business interests
I don't need to elaborate on #1.
I'm sure you're well aware that gay couples would have the ability to share benefits such as insurance. I know you're humane enough to support the right to be able to gain bedside access to a dying partner, but that right is free. People tend to be willing to oppose all kinds of things if it means having to foot the bill.
How does one know if one is barren or sterile unless they try to procreate? There is only really one test, having sex (and lots of it at the right time of ovulation each cycle) and usually a couple will hit the jackpot getting pregnant. Getting pregnant is assumed with the conjugal act, think of all the woman who used birth control only to find out they can't get pregnant later in life?
ReplyDeleteHomosexuals aren't barren or sterile, they are fertile as any heterosexual for whatever reason they are in a situation they don't want to mate with the opposite sex. They're still great uncles and aunts to help with nieces and nephews, people apart of our community who have friends and close companions.
Everyone needs insurance, in fact here in Massachusetts married or not married it is required by law to purchase health insurance. There is nothing illegal to get life insurance for yourself to benefit a non-relative. There is a reason why someone would have to get health insurance for someone else, first your own children, second usually the mother (not always) since she or the father cut down on hours at work or possible be a stay at home parent, losing their health insurance. Rather then going on public subsidized state health, like here in Massachusetts 'MassHealth' for single moms and children with dead beat dads, women and their children are added onto their husbands.
Also single persons should be able to choose who they want to have at their bedside and by law we shouldn't deny that either. If anything we need better public policy for single people. I have an elderly neighbor, never married, she never gets any widow benefits (i.e. eligible for property tax abatement). How is that fair when she worked her entire life, retired on limited income, and owns a home?
So we only go by the Judeo-Christian tradition? Because there have been societies that allow gay marriage...
ReplyDeleteNo, they recognize some same-sex unions (the Native American berdaches being an example and animal marriage for that matter). No lasting example of a society in which such unions were called the exact same thing has been given. No example of a society in which the concept of marriage (or whatever the language's word for it was) was merely between any two persons regardless of gender.
But it has been made clear that SSM advocates don't want anything like the examples which are found in past societies. They want to androgynize the concept of marriage, not just "extend" it, or create another institution with the same rights.
....and animal marriage for that matter.
Point being what, Ginx?
Answer me this: who can hermaphrodites marry?
If hermaphrodites can be both male and female, then the answer is apparent, isn't it? A hermaphrodite marrying a man can be a female, a hermaphrodite marrying a woman can be a male. If we're talking true hermaphroditism, that is.
Though this is like arguing for polygamy by raising the question of conjoined twins. Or arguing for marriage of close relatives by raising the question of a marriage between a person and their parent's half-sibling. (or half-cousins, etc.)
Or ultimately, like using the example of petrified wood to say that there is no real difference between rocks and trees.
Ginx,
ReplyDeleteIn reference that marriage not being about procreation.
Think about the words we use to reference marriage, such as 'matrimony' which means "act of becoming a mother" [Middle English, from Old French matrimoine, from Latin mātrimōnium, from māter, mātr-, mother.] or the term nuptials defined as 1. relating to marriage; conjugal nuptial vows 2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Zoology) Zoology of or relating to mating the nuptial flight of a queen bee
If you're not a fan of marriage and think sexual relationships shouldn't have anything to do with procreation and that a woman and a man have no joint obligation to a child just say so and don't tip toe around it.
above: (the Native American berdaches being an example and animal marriage for that matter)
ReplyDeleteSorry, the parenthesis in there should be after the word "example". In copying Ginx's paragraph I mistakenly left the last part of it where I did not intend it.
Call me old fashioned, but I believe in traditional marriage. It is a sacred institution meant solely for the raising of children, an unbreakable pact between a man and the woman he loves' father.
ReplyDeleteNot the way we see it, Ginx. I don't think the institution you "believe" in is worth defending.
ReplyDeleteWe believe in an institution which is equal between the man and the woman, the two people who combine together and create children from their own identities. And an institution we need to help protect the equality between the man, woman and child.
If you believe in a pact between a man and a father in law, I feel really sad for you. Sincerely.
Do you support neutering marriage? Do you support marriage at all because you have such ill imaginations about it? If so, you are only compounding the harm, I'm afraid.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn Lawn,
ReplyDeleteGinx knows we're right and she's wrong.
She's avoided my answers regarding hermaphrodites, sterility and fair presumption of fertility, physical time and resources demanded by child rearing that a mother and child may be allowed on the father's health plan so she doesn't end up on welfare. We have countless links and posts regarding the well being of everyone, when marriage is about a woman and a man having joint obligation to their child.
Ginx is in all proper terms maybe a bigot. So much in fact she willing to ignore biology (eww... procreation) because that's what religious people happen to acknowledge. If religious people believe in it, then she can't is the basis of her thought process that it can't be good.
Women get pregnant from men. Don't matter what you believe or not. We don't want dead beat dads or men siring 400 children via sperm donation. We want to hold men equally accountable, even doing some extra housework. It's really not a hard concept to wrap your head around, but nooo.... we can't... can we?
I feel like putting my name on this post.
Renee Aste
Lowell Massachusetts
Ginx: ...I believe in traditional marriage. It is a sacred institution meant solely for the raising of children, an unbreakable pact between a man and the woman he loves' father.
ReplyDeleteSo, Ginx, I assume you have an example of a culture which forbade a woman to get married if her father was dead.
I'm a male, actually, though I am flattered. I would love to be a woman, so I could always be right.
ReplyDeleteWow, Ginx. Your sarcastic jib against women was most uncalled for.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Ginx isn't attacking women but the general state of American culture these days? Men and masculinity are quite denigrated.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry another delete there
ReplyDeleteOn Lawn, Remember Ginx started his comments in another post by calling me 'retarded' where did we really think these conversations will go? Got to admit, Ginx has that 'bitchy' tone in his writing.
Ginx position is that marriage can be anything, except what it is. Sure marriage may utilized to do many things, but always linked to procreation until now. It can be tied to a positive religious meaning bringing forth new life, a way to make tribal connections by having parents set up the marriages (sadly, even by force/coercion), and even personal assets. I'm not going to shy away what has been and what exists in many parts of the world today, such as child brides and other practices that must be ended.
Even if I drop the argument to define marriage and created a complete new word for the lexicon, what would stop society from enforcing that false belief that new word or any public policy relating to it was being unjustly discriminatory towards a orientation towards the same sex?