Can justification of gay marriage lead to justification of incest?

[SteveGC]

They are a part of society, and they can define marriage however they like. They cannot, however, force anyone else to accept their definitions as valid.

And yes, the same is true in reverse. If the Catholic Church refuses to define marriage as anything but a union between a man and woman who intend to have children, secular society cannot force them to change their definition. Catholic priests are perfectly free to refuse the sacrament to any couple they wish.

So, it would appear that we have all the makings of a perfectly serviceable detente. So why don’t we? Because one of us isn’t actually content to allow “their rules” to be practiced only by “their people” - they won’t be content until everyone is playing by those rules. And they pursue this agenda all the while claiming violations of their “religious freedom” - that is, the freedom to force everyone who doesn’t agree with them to live their lives a certain way.

This is the all-too-typical and nonsensical individualism argument, which attempts to have it’s cake and eat it too. Tell me, which societal laws do you defend or advocate for that affect no one else but you and/or those who share your same morals? Every law affects everybody to some extent, large or small. With same sex marriage, first of all, it’s the LGBT lobbyists that have “forced” their agenda on society. So, why can’t I make the same argument that you make here? Why can’t I say that they are imposing their view into my life? Because it doesn’t affect me? It does. It normalizes the behavior.

Why don’t we all allow street drug advocates to legalize all street drugs? Hey, it doesn’t force YOU to take drugs, nor your family. So, should you have a beef with it? Of course you should, because it normalizes the behavior, makes it prevalent in society, and has negative measurable ramifications to the safety and well-being of others. That’s why. The point is, whether you agree with legalized street drugs or not, you allow those who fight against it to do so using even a theist morality argument.

Well, same sex marriage, in a way not as visible as legalized street drugs, has (in our opinion) negative and measurable effects on the physical, psychological and spiritual well-being and health of others. Just because you might not share the same notion of what this negative effect (most likely the spiritual) entails doesn’t make it rational for you to declare foul and claim that we are dictating or forcing you to live a certain way. You wouldn’t cry “foul” if we were railing against legalized meth, even though legalizing it would not force us to change our own individual lifestyle. We all vote for what we think is best for both us individually AND for society at large. We don’t just advocate for those things which are only beneficial for us in our isolated little world.

Yes, by telling Catholics I have no interest in changing how THEY define marriage, and asserting society’s right to not be ruled by it from end to end, I’m discriminating against Catholics.

The difference again, for all to see: You want everyone in this country to live by the Catholic/Christian definition of marriage, whether they like it or not. I’m saying the Catholic/Christian is free to define marriage however they like, proclaim from the pulpit the validity or invalidity of anyone’s marriage, and have all the government protections due to them in these matters. But they have no more power to tell me who I may marry than they have to tell me what foods I may eat, and on what day.

The Catholic Church isn’t telling YOU to do, or not do, anything. The Church (via it’s more activist members) are acting in their rightly ordered capacity as members of the same society you belong to, to advocate for certain laws. That’s it. Period. The Church doesn’t tell you jack squat, ASimon. You make it sound like it does, rather cleverly omitting the fact that we are simply advocating for public laws just like you have the right to do. Your insinuation that Catholics are their own society, apart from the larger national society of this country, is laughable. I get it, though. The Church is an easy target to vilify, and label as separate. A burden from our divinely decreed role as a beacon of light on a hill for all to see. So be it. But know that to claim we are not allowed to individually act as equal voting and advocating members of the United States reveals an appalling level of ignorance and bigotry.

 

[ASimon]

Why don’t we all allow street drug advocates to legalize all street drugs? Hey, it doesn’t force YOU to take drugs, nor your family. So, should you have a beef with it? Of course you should, because it normalizes the behavior, makes it prevalent in society, and has negative measurable ramifications to the safety and well-being of others. That’s why. The point is, whether you agree with legalized street drugs or not, you allow those who fight against it to do so using even a theist morality argument.

Apples and oranges. Sure, you can make all sorts of compelling arguments why society’s interests are best served by restricting and forbidding drug use. But no comparable arguments exist for restricting marriage to being between men and women only.

Well, same sex marriage, in a way not as visible as legalized street drugs, has (in our opinion) negative and measurable effects on the physical, psychological and spiritual well-being and health of others. Just because you might not share the same notion of what this negative effect (most likely the spiritual) entails doesn’t make it rational for you to declare foul and claim that we are dictating or forcing you to live a certain way. You wouldn’t cry “foul” if we were railing against legalized meth, even though legalizing it would not force us to change our own individual lifestyle. We all vote for what we think is best for both us individually AND for society at large. We don’t just advocate for those things which are only beneficial for us in our isolated little world.

And not all opinions are equally valid. The validity is commensurate with how well the opinion’s foundations track with objective reality. Your problem is that you first have to presuppose a “spiritual” component to human existence to even get your argument off the ground. After that, you need to presuppose the parameters of this spiritual component, what can affect it, and how. None of it’s observable. None of it’s testable. But nevermind that - it’s your opinion of how the Universe is actually organized - and just as valid as any other. Sorry, but no.

The Catholic Church isn’t telling YOU to do, or not do, anything. The Church (via it’s more activist members) are acting in their rightly ordered capacity as members of the same society you belong to, to advocate for certain laws. That’s it. Period. The Church doesn’t tell you jack squat, ASimon. You make it sound like it does, rather cleverly omitting the fact that we are simply advocating for public laws just like you have the right to do. Your insinuation that Catholics are their own society, apart from the larger national society of this country, is laughable. I get it, though. The Church is an easy target to vilify, and label as separate. A burden from our divinely decreed role as a beacon of light on a hill for all to see. So be it. But know that to claim we are not allowed to individually act as equal voting and advocating members of the United States reveals an appalling level of ignorance and bigotry.

You’ve done nothing to unseat my argument here that what Catholics are advocating for is fundamentally different than what LGBT advocates are fighting for. Yeah, we’re not telling people how to live. We’re just demanding that societies laws fully reflect our particular theism’s code of morality and that everyone follow them (whether they subscribe to that theism or not). Big difference, there.

 

[SteveGC]

Apples and oranges. Sure, you can make all sorts of compelling arguments why society’s interests are best served by restricting and forbidding drug use. But no comparable arguments exist for restricting marriage to being between men and women only.

It’s not apples and oranges. We’re talking about fruit, not which kinds. We’re talking law advocation in general, which you deny the theist who does so based on a spiritual foundation of morality.

And not all opinions are equally valid. The validity is commensurate with how well the opinion’s foundations track with objective reality. Your problem is that you first have to presuppose a “spiritual” component to human existence to even get your argument off the ground. After that, you need to presuppose the parameters of this spiritual component, what can affect it, and how. None of it’s observable. None of it’s testable. But nevermind that - it’s your opinion of how the Universe is actually organized - and just as valid as any other. Sorry, but no.

So, your point is that this is my opinion? That’s it? Stating the obvious is your point? Of course it’s my opinion, as your views are your opinions. Opinions are not some arbitrary taboo in debate, friend. They are essential motivators in all things. They are based on fundamental beliefs of each individual. So what if I have to “presuppose a spiritual component”? You have to presuppose a non-spiritual component. You have to prove that the world is only that which we can see and study just as much as I would have to prove that God is real. It has no bearing on whether or not you and I are equally permitted to advocate for laws by which we believe society should be governed. If you don’t like what we advocate for, fight harder to defeat it with advocating for a counter-law. That’s the way society works. But don’t ridiculously reduce yourself to some ignorant position of refereeing who gets to vote and who doesn’t. That’s what you’re doing. News flash: 90% of all Americans base their votes on a set of morals which are “spiritual” in their foundation. So, should only the 10% who base it only on measurable calculations and moral relativity have the right to vote? Get real.

You’ve done nothing to unseat my argument here that what Catholics are advocating for is fundamentally different than what LGBT advocates are fighting for. Yeah, we’re not telling people how to live. We’re just demanding that societies laws fully reflect our particular theism’s code of morality and that everyone follow them (whether they subscribe to that theism or not). Big difference, there.

Another news flash: the LGBT same-sex marriage agenda is not about marital rights. They can acquire the same benefits as married couples using currently legal and legitimate means. It’s not about being able to have a wedding and all of its trappings. They can do that in hundreds of places that are sympathetic to their lifestyle. No. It’s about bringing homosexual acts up to the level of morality as heterosexual acts. It’s about proclaiming to society that sodomy is just as normal as anything else we currently protect as normal under the law. It’s about moral relativism. This is not my personal opinion of the agenda. This is from the mouths of LGBT’ers themselves.

And I’m sorry. No. I’m part of this society to which they desire to make this proclamation of normalcy. And sodomy is not natural, nor moral. And I will fight to have it never taught to my children by textbook authors and by liberal teachers who are fueled by the fact that they are protected under law to tell them it is normal. And so I will vote, not force, but vote for this proclamation of normalcy to be (and remain) prohibited.

Why do you have such a problem with us exercising our right to vote based on beliefs, regardless of where they come from? Are you saying we have no right to vote? How exactly is it that our vote constitutes a forcing of values onto society. You can retain whatever values you want, regardless of the law. You do know that, right? Just because our vote disallows a man from legally marrying a man does not force our values onto him. He’s not forced to marry a woman. He’s not forced to see marriage as we do. And if he wants to lay down with that man, he may. We’re not bedroom police. And if he wants to visit that man in the hospital, and receive health insurance from his policy, there are easily identifiable methods to take that fight to the proper institutions and make that happen. We just say (and make our vote known that) the institution of marriage is not one of those methods.

p.s. for what it’s worth, I don’t mean to be condescending and abrupt. I actually enjoy this discourse. I’d recommend you contemplate the very real truth that Catholics who advocate against same-sex marriage do so ultimately because they desire true joy for everyone. Eternal joy, whether they believe in it or not. We have no agenda against an LGBT personally. Although I can see why you might think we do.

Peace.

 

[ASimon]

It’s not apples and oranges. We’re talking about fruit, not which kinds. We’re talking law advocation in general, which you deny the theist who does so based on a spiritual foundation of morality.

Correct. Because the existence of your foundation is without objective merit. You have to assume it’s there based on no evidence, and that’s to even assert that you can base a moral code on it.

So, your point is that this is my opinion? That’s it? Stating the obvious is your point? Of course it’s my opinion, as your views are your opinions. Opinions are not some arbitrary taboo in debate, friend. They are essential motivators in all things. They are based on fundamental beliefs of each individual. So what if I have to “presuppose a spiritual component”? You have to presuppose a non-spiritual component. You have to prove that the world is only that which we can see and study just as much as I would have to prove that God is real. It has no bearing on whether or not you and I are equally permitted to advocate for laws by which we believe society should be governed. If you don’t like what we advocate for, fight harder to defeat it with advocating for a counter-law. That’s the way society works. But don’t ridiculously reduce yourself to some ignorant position of refereeing who gets to vote and who doesn’t. That’s what you’re doing. News flash: 90% of all Americans base their votes on a set of morals which are “spiritual” in their foundation. So, should only the 10% who base it only on measurable calculations and moral relativity have the right to vote? Get real.

No, I don’t “presuppose” a non-spiritual component. I assert a non-spiritual component to human life because a spiritual component cannot be seen, felt, experienced, tested for, or have accurate predictions made from it. You assert a spiritual component in spite of all this - in fact, you insist that it’s inherent to spirituality that there can be no direct evidence (as though this were a point for its objective reality). That’s what makes it a presupposition.

My point is that your opinion is less valid than mine because its foundations are presupposed. The foundations of my opinion, however, are based in objective reality. Tests, studies, a code of morality that takes into account actual suffering and flourishing that can be observed. Which isn’t to say that my opinion is necessarily right. But at least an intelligent debate can be had that doesn’t resort to arguments for supernaturalism.

Another news flash: the LGBT same-sex marriage agenda is not about marital rights. They can acquire the same benefits as married couples using currently legal and legitimate means. It’s not about being able to have a wedding and all of its trappings. They can do that in hundreds of places that are sympathetic to their lifestyle. No. It’s about bringing homosexual acts up to the level of morality as heterosexual acts. It’s about proclaiming to society that sodomy is just as normal as anything else we currently protect as normal under the law. It’s about moral relativism. This is not my personal opinion of the agenda. This is from the mouths of LGBT’ers themselves.

This is objectively false. The federal government does not recognize gay marriage or civil unions, therefore all of the federal benefits that hetereosexual marriages receive are denied to same sex couples, even if they reside in a state that does confer the same state benefits to them.

Also, your reference to moral relativism has no bearing here. Like you, I have an objective basis for morality, and in mine, sodomy is only immoral when someone is being forcibly sodomized. So consensual sodomy is as immoral now as it was back when Leviticus was written. Which is to say, not at all.

And I’m sorry. No. I’m part of this society to which they desire to make this proclamation of normalcy. And sodomy is not natural, nor moral. And I will fight to have it never taught to my children by textbook authors and by liberal teachers who are fueled by the fact that they are protected under law to tell them it is normal. And so I will vote, not force, but vote for this proclamation of normalcy to be (and remain) prohibited.

Why do you have such a problem with us exercising our right to vote based on beliefs, regardless of where they come from? Are you saying we have no right to vote? How exactly is it that our vote constitutes a forcing of values onto society. You can retain whatever values you want, regardless of the law. You do know that, right? Just because our vote disallows a man from legally marrying a man does not force our values onto him. He’s not forced to marry a woman. He’s not forced to see marriage as we do. And if he wants to lay down with that man, he may. We’re not bedroom police. And if he wants to visit that man in the hospital, and receive health insurance from his policy, there are easily identifiable methods to take that fight to the proper institutions and make that happen. We just say (and make our vote known that) the institution of marriage is not one of those methods.

And your basis for saying this is a set of Bronze Age metaphysical “truths” - which assert that a sex act between two men does damage to everyone’s spiritual life, whether they are in engaged in the act, present in the room with them, or living on the other side of the world.

By all means, vote your conscience. But stop pretending that we are two sides of the same coin. I want my values to dictate what people are allowed to do, with an eye towards the objective understood consequences of that behavior. You want your values to dictate what people cannot do, based on information you can only assume is true without evidence. And you want everyone to be affected by the result of those values being imposed, whether those people share your values or not.

 

[Whadyamean]

Whad

**And you might well remember that “the ‘truth’ God gave you” is interpreted multitudinous ways even within our Church, not to mention the thousands, nearly forty, i think, of other Christian sects, and then not to mention Judaism, Islam, etc. Who here needs to “come to their senses?” **

You!

The truth is one, not forty versions of one. It is a scandal that Catholics think interpretation is equal to truth.

Thanks for making my point. I appreciate your complicity.

 

[Sair]

You mean like Romeo and Juliet? Or Abelard and Heloise? Or Tristan and Isolde? Or even back further, the love between the Byzantine Emperor Justinian and Theadora? Or back further still, to Antony and Cleopatra?

And do you recall the fate of these grand passions? Part of the point of the literature devoted to these couplings was to demonstrate how unwise it was to give in to one’s desires - even in marriage. The lovers in question allowed their passion to overtake what would have been considered the good sense of realising that their matches were socially and practically unsuitable. We, through the goggles of a different age, consider these to be great romances, undoubtedly - but that is not necessarily how they would have been seen in their day.

The notion of marriage has only “evolved” as an expedient in the minds of those with a vested interest in trying to normalise the abnormal. The same principles which have made same-sex "marriages’ taboo are the ones which still make incest, paedophilia and bestiality taboo. Only the morally blind, the intellectally dishonest and the philosophically challenged can’t/wont see it.

Is it still usual practice in the West to exchange cattle for brides? For the parents of the bride to pay a dowry? for the couple to live with the extended family? If these things are still the norm in our society, it has definitely escaped my attention. Nuclear families have become normalised over the past couple of centuries, but they were not ‘normal’ for most of human history. It’s one thing to be a political conservative, but to actually deny the reality of social evolution and cultural change is indeed wilful ignorance.

 

[John21652]

They are a part of society, and they can define marriage however they like. They cannot, however, force anyone else to accept their definitions as valid.

…

Yes, by telling Catholics I have no interest in changing how THEY define marriage, and asserting society’s right to not be ruled by it from end to end, I’m discriminating against Catholics.

The difference again, for all to see: You want everyone in this country to live by the Catholic/Christian definition of marriage, whether they like it or not. I’m saying the Catholic/Christian is free to define marriage however they like, proclaim from the pulpit the validity or invalidity of anyone’s marriage, and have all the government protections due to them in these matters. But they have no more power to tell me who I may marry than they have to tell me what foods I may eat, and on what day.

This post is contradictory.

You admit to discriminating against Catholics, yet you are advocating for not discriminating aginst homosexuals. That reeks of a double standard.

You’ve also, as this post progressed, widened out the discrimantion to include not just Catholics, but all Christians.

Considering how you live in a Christian society, you are advocating discrimination against your own society’s moral and legal tenets.

In an earlier post you admit to having an objective base for your morality, whatever that might be, because so far it reeks of moral relativism. In post #61, you wrote “And not all opinions are equally valid. The validity is commensurate with how well the opinion’s foundations track with objective reality.” Even that statement contradicts your relativist stance.
However, the real contradiction is that your society is predicated upon an objective morality that is very obviously enshrined in the legal structure of your society’s foundations, yet you wish to discriminate against it. Meanwhile you assert you have an objective basis for your own morality.

You’re making me giddy.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

You’re making me giddy.

Illegitimi non carborundum!

 

[John21652]

And do you recall the fate of these grand passions? Part of the point of the literature devoted to these couplings was to demonstrate how unwise it was to give in to one’s desires - even in marriage. The lovers in question allowed their passion to overtake what would have been considered the good sense of realising that their matches were socially and practically unsuitable. We, through the goggles of a different age, consider these to be great romances, undoubtedly - but that is not necessarily how they would have been seen in their day.

Oh come now Sair. Your inventive re-working of the examples I gave to indicate that somehow “romantic tradgedy” proves your original comment that marriage wasn’t about love is really unbecoming. Romeo and Juliet, Abelard and Heloise and Isolde and Tristan is proof writ large that love played a very major role in the establishment of relationships. As for Justinian and Theadora, they lived happily ever after and so too did matthew Flinders once he made it back to England. Flinders is a classic example of how the ‘fates’ intervened as they did not for the other examples.

Is it still usual practice in the West to exchange cattle for brides? For the parents of the bride to pay a dowry? for the couple to live with the extended family? If these things are still the norm in our society, it has definitely escaped my attention.

Bride prices of the type you write of were never a main feature of western societies. If they were a necessary feature, how’d the peasants of ireland ever marry, prosper and grow large families? Brides living with extended families was never the “norm”, but was not uncommon. It all depended upon the wealth of the people at the time and how hard/easy it was to get established. I know quite a few examples of brides having lived with the extended family in rural areas. It still goes on today.

Nuclear families have become normalised over the past couple of centuries, but they were not ‘normal’ for most of human history. It’s one thing to be a political conservative, but to actually deny the reality of social evolution and cultural change is indeed wilful ignorance.

To attempt to alter the terms of the argument to cover for your initial blunder is also decietful. Your first point was about love in marriage, now it’s become the nuclear family.

You’ve also blundered on this new point as well. The “nuclear family” as you term it, is as old as the Bible. you only need to read the Bible to know. You are just parroting left-wing feminist clap trap.

Let me quote to you Anthropologist Margaret Mead -

As far back as our knowledge takes us, human beings have lived in families. We know of no period where this was not so. We know of no people who have succeeded for long in dissolving the family or displacing it … Again and again, in spite of proposals for change and actual experiments, human societies have reaffirmed their dependence on the family as the basic unit of human living—the family of father, mother and childrenMead, Margaret and Ken Heyman. 1965. Family. New York: Macmillan. pp. 77-78

 

[Sair]

Oh come now Sair. Your inventive re-working of the examples I gave to indicate that somehow “romantic tradgedy” proves your original comment that marriage wasn’t about love is really unbecoming. Romeo and Juliet, Abelard and Heloise and Isolde and Tristan is proof writ large that love played a very major role in the establishment of relationships. As for Justinian and Theadora, they lived happily ever after and so too did matthew Flinders once he made it back to England. Flinders is a classic example of how the ‘fates’ intervened as they did not for the other examples.

I never said love wasn’t a factor in establishing relationships - just not in establishing marriages

And this is not my ‘inventive reworking’ - this article is just one of many that have been written dealing with the difference between what we now consider to be romantic love and what was the norm for marriage arrangements in ages past.

Bride prices of the type you write of were never a main feature of western societies. If they were a necessary feature, how’d the peasants of ireland ever marry, prosper and grow large families?

There was always some exchange involved - the expectation was that marriage was a joining of families, not just individuals, and this almost invariably had an economic element.

Brides living with extended families was never the “norm”, but was not uncommon. It all depended upon the wealth of the people at the time and how hard/easy it was to get established. I know quite a few examples of brides having lived with the extended family in rural areas. It still goes on today.

So what’s your point?

To attempt to alter the terms of the argument to cover for your initial blunder is also decietful. Your first point was about love in marriage, now it’s become the nuclear family.

Both are highly relevant to any discussion of marriage in the modern age, and they are not unrelated concepts. You accusation of deceit is unfounded, and a blunder on your part.

You’ve also blundered on this new point as well. The “nuclear family” as you term it, is as old as the Bible. you only need to read the Bible to know. You are just parroting left-wing feminist clap trap.

And you are indulging in right-wing conservative patriarchal bluster! The nuclear family, as you well know, as anyone knows who actually examines the role of marriage in society, is a modern invention. It involves the isolation of the couple and their children as a separate socioeconomic unit, whereas in past ages, including Biblical times (where polygamy was not that uncommon, by the bye, which somehow doesn’t fit your picture of the nuclear family) the marriage was, as I’ve pointed out, a joining of families, not just the individuals involved, and the couple maintained strong ties with the extended family. This is simply not the expectation in the modern age.

And before you fly off the handle again and accuse me of just making all this up to fit my own notions, here’s another article from someone who takes a much broader view of marriage in history and culture than you apparently do.

 

[ASimon]

This post is contradictory.

You admit to discriminating against Catholics, yet you are advocating for not discriminating aginst homosexuals. That reeks of a double standard.

You’ve also, as this post progressed, widened out the discrimantion to include not just Catholics, but all Christians.

Considering how you live in a Christian society, you are advocating discrimination against your own society’s moral and legal tenets.

In an earlier post you admit to having an objective base for your morality, whatever that might be, because so far it reeks of moral relativism. In post #61, you wrote “And not all opinions are equally valid. The validity is commensurate with how well the opinion’s foundations track with objective reality.” Even that statement contradicts your relativist stance.
However, the real contradiction is that your society is predicated upon an objective morality that is very obviously enshrined in the legal structure of your society’s foundations, yet you wish to discriminate against it. Meanwhile you assert you have an objective basis for your own morality.

You’re making me giddy.

I can only imagine how giddy you must feel. When God’s on your side, reading comprehension becomes optional.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Neither of the articles you reference says anything about same-sex marriage before recent times anywhere in the world. That because there is no record of such.

In all civilizations before our time homosexuals never even demanded the right to marry. That was because they sensed in themselves the absurdity of such a demand. They no longer have that sense because they have lost common sense altogether.

 

[Whadyamean]

Charlemagne_II:
Charlemagne,

You’re making me giddy.

Illegitimi non carborundum!

Good one! thanks for the encouragement!

 

[Sair]

Neither of the articles you reference says anything about same-sex marriage before recent times anywhere in the world. That because there is no record of such.

In all civilizations before our time homosexuals never even demanded the right to marry. That was because they sensed in themselves the absurdity of such a demand. They no longer have that sense because they have lost common sense altogether.

Actually, the articles I linked weren’t meant to say anything in particular about gay marriage in the past (which, as you correctly observe, did not exist) - only about the nature of marriage in general, and the notion of love within marriage as something that has undergone a perceptual change over time. The second article, in fact, deals with the social evolution of the institution of marriage to the point where it has actually become perfectly reasonable to acknowledge what we now consider to be marriage between two people of the same sex.

If homosexual people in past ages weren’t actively lobbying for marriage (when they weren’t too busy concealing their inclination from the authorities who would kill them for it) it’s not because they sensed any innate absurdity, but because, as the article explains, it would make no sense for a families to exchange offspring who would not produce offspring (and thus be economically and socially viable) in their turn. Our society’s understanding of what marriage actually is and what it entails has fundamentally changed. Attempting to exclude homosexual people from marriage now is very definitely a case of shutting the gate after the horse has bolted…

 

[John21652]

I never said love wasn’t a factor in establishing relationships - just not in establishing marriages

Splitting hairs doesn’t hide the great blunder you made.

And this is not my ‘inventive reworking’ - this article is just one of many that have been written dealing with the difference between what we now consider to be romantic love and what was the norm for marriage arrangements in ages past.

Oh Sair, honestly, you really need to broaden your education out some.

here, let me post, in its entirety, a love poem from Ancient Greece, written by Sappho.
Again love, the limb-loosener, rattles me
bittersweet,
irresistible,
a crawling beast.
As a wind in the mountains
assaults an oak,
Love shook my breast.
You came, Atthis, you did so good
You refreshed my heart that was burned by desire
Whiter than milk
Fresher than water
Softer than the finest veil.
I loved you, Atthis, long ago
even when you seemed to me
a small child.
It was you that enchanted the mortals,
Child of Aphrodite,
You the best of stars
And whiter than milk…

And here’s another, by Archilochos from Paros

A slender, lovely, graceful girl,
Just budding into supple line,
And you scare her and make her shy.
Laid her down in a thousand flowers,
And put my soft wool cloak around her.
I slid my arm under her neck
To still the fear in her eyes,
For she was trembling like a fawn,
I caressed the beauty of all her body
And the desire of love wringed my heart
Like a huge cloud cloaked my eyes
And stole the sweetest breath from my chest.

Now, Sair, isn’t love a many splendoured thing…

There was always some exchange involved - the expectation was that marriage was a joining of families, not just individuals, and this almost invariably had an economic element.

The vast majority of western families had nothing, or very little, to exchange. Some of the nobility went down this path to protect grand estates. However, it was never the “norm”.

So what’s your point?

That you didn’t have one!

Both are highly relevant to any discussion of marriage in the modern age, and they are not unrelated concepts. You accusation of deceit is unfounded, and a blunder on your part.

Switching the subject of your discussion when you are nailed on a point is most unbecoming…

And you are indulging in right-wing conservative patriarchal bluster!

And Sair ‘outs’ herself!

The nuclear family, as you well know, as anyone knows who actually examines the role of marriage in society, is a modern invention.

So, are you saying Margaret Meade was wrong?

It involves the isolation of the couple and their children as a separate socioeconomic unit, whereas in past ages, including Biblical times (where polygamy was not that uncommon, by the bye, which somehow doesn’t fit your picture of the nuclear family) the marriage was, as I’ve pointed out, a joining of families, not just the individuals involved, and the couple maintained strong ties with the extended family. This is simply not the expectation in the modern age.

Extended family was a big feature of western societies until very recently. There are even people who lament the fall away in importance of the extended family right here on CAF. The extended family has been replaced by using governments to take the place of family members looking after their own kith and kin. Now that’s another product of feminist left wing politics. You know, freeing the woman from home duties so she can have a fancy job and party like a man.

And before you fly off the handle again and accuse me of just making all this up to fit my own notions, here’s another article from someone who takes a much broader view of marriage in history and culture than you apparently do.

Sair, what put Levi-Strauss on the map was the impramatur of Simone de Beauvoir. Levi-Strauss was overshadowed by Malinowski in Britain and Australia and certainly by Boas in the United States. The article you linked to was very selective in the anthropologist they quoted, wasn’t it? One British anthropologist, Edmund leach, went down the Structural Functionalist path, until even he too came to criticise levi-Strauss’s work. Levi-Strauss’s work was a favourite of the Marxists, particularly after de Beauvoir rubber stamped it. His theories, like Marx’s, looked for underlying patterns and structure, particularly in relationships between people. The two were a neat fit. The trouble was, it missed basic things like descent and genealogical ties, which underpinned many traditional societies. That’s why the type of article you linked to just repeats the same old fallacies over and over again. Levi-Strauss was bypassed long ago in anthropological theory.

As for the central thesis of that article, that the nuclear family is a recent invention, how come, in the Bible, right up the front, in Genesis 2;24, it says -

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Sounds pretty 'nuclear to me!

 

[DasErlibnis]

“Gay-marriage” is an oxymoron, a contradiction of terms. It’s not possible, Ergo no justification is possible either.

 

[inocente]

Yes, abortion is also legal. Does that make it right?

Euthanasia was legal in Nazi Germany. Did that make it right?

Hyperbole. Two law-abiding tax payers wanting to declare their love is hardly comparable to a reductio ad Hitlerum.

Insanity comes in many forms, but society has no obligation to make any of them legal; and a society that does will pay for it in the long run.

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/MSNBC/...21-navy-homecoming-kiss-hmed-12p.grid-6x2.jpg
msnbc.msn.com/id/45753034/ns/us_news-life/t/women-share-st-kiss-us-navy-ships-return/#.TvRbrlbntj1

It doesn’t matter how eloquently you argue, a society which openly accepts same sex relationships in its military cannot continue to apply don’t-ask-don’t-tell on its civilians, it is too inconsistent. Either it has to backtrack all the way and re-criminalize the act, politically very difficult, or complete what was started by legalizing civil unions. It can’t just sit in the middle, and politically this has outmaneuvered those against gay union.

 

[Sair]

Splitting hairs doesn’t hide the great blunder you made.

Frankly, in light of what follows, I don’t think you have any business accusing me of blundering. It’s obvious you take issue with feminist interpretations of history, and although these may not be entirely accurate, they have at least as much claim to be taken seriously as any other modern re-examination of the received wisdom. It’s actually quite amusing that you accuse me of nailing my feminist colours to the mast, as if this is somehow more embarrassing than you doing the same with your patriarchal conservatism!

Oh Sair, honestly, you really need to broaden your education out some.

here, let me post, in its entirety, a love poem from Ancient Greece, written by Sappho.

I think your entire claim to superior education in this regard is undermined by referencing Sappho, who under the strictures you uphold, could hardly have expected to exercise her passions within the confines of marriage!

Not to mention the fact that love poetry actually doesn’t support your case in any particular way - as I pointed out (and you dismissed as hair-splitting) romantic love and marriage have been, for much of recorded history, separate things. Not being married to a person does not preclude one from pining for them, or from writing sonnets for them.

As for Margaret Mead, here is a quotation from the lady herself:

“No society that has survived has ever been quite like ours today. Ours is made up largely of isolated families. The children are totally dependent on their fathers and mothers, with no other relatives to fall back on, or neighbors, or anybody. Yet we are coming to think that the only form of possible life is this kind of “nuclear” family. That could be dangerous.”

If anything, I would suggest that the interview from which this quotation comes very much supports the view expressed in the article I linked previously, that the nuclear family, and our modern conceptions of marriage itself, are products of capitalism and of the romantic expectation that there will be one person out there who is our ‘soul mate’, who will fulfil all our emotional and social needs, and that if we don’t find this person, or if we fail to remain with them for life and be actively happy and in love with them, it’s because we’re not ‘working’ hard enough at it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

“Gay-marriage” is an oxymoron, a contradiction of terms. I

One of the proposed items for this debate includes “evolving” the definition of Marriage. If you keep it unchanged then what you’ve typed is true. But once the terms are changed (as it has been in some areas) then it is no longer an oxymoron.

Those that live in an area where the definition has changed are free to ignore this change in definition and not acknowledge gay marriages (provided that person is not in a position in which non-acknowledgement would constitute unlawful discrimination).

 

[John21652]

Frankly, in light of what follows, I don’t think you have any business accusing me of blundering.

But Sair, it was all so obvious!

It’s obvious you take issue with feminist interpretations of history, and although these may not be entirely accurate,

“not entirely accurate”, well isn’t that an understatement. Weave in deconstruction theory, add in a whopping dose of Marxism and you have historical revision writ large.

they have at least as much claim to be taken seriously as any other modern re-examination of the received wisdom.

When you delve deeply enough and expose the obvious and very deliberate gender bias, based on denigrating men, capitalism and even the poor old nuclear family, it’s downright disgraceful and has no claim to being taken seriously at all. .

It’s actually quite amusing that you accuse me of nailing my feminist colours to the mast, as if this is somehow more embarrassing than you doing the same with your patriarchal conservatism!

But Sair, it is you who are doing all the neat Marxist tricks of putting labels on people and turning them into juxtaposed ideologies. Very Marxist. You even labelled yourself!!

I think your entire claim to superior education in this regard

Ooh, Sair, isn’t that a wee bit condescending?

is undermined by referencing Sappho, who under the strictures you uphold, could hardly have expected to exercise her passions within the confines of marriage!

True, Sappho wasn’t a good example for championing marriage, but you must remember, your first post was about the lack of “love” being a raison d’etre for the establishment of marriages. Now what say you about Archilochos?

Not to mention the fact that love poetry actually doesn’t support your case in any particular way - as I pointed out (and you dismissed as hair-splitting) romantic love and marriage have been, for much of recorded history, separate things.

And the evidence shows that this is a wrong notion, which is why I pulled examples, poetry included, from various times past. Your notion is one derived from a revisionist perspective on history.

Not being married to a person does not preclude one from pining for them, or from writing sonnets for them.

Indeed, but it does show that very strong relationships were formed because of romantic love and not because of the economic expediency you would have us believe.

As for Margaret Mead, here is a quotation from the lady herself:“No society that has survived has ever been quite like ours today. Ours is made up largely of isolated families. The children are totally dependent on their fathers and mothers, with no other relatives to fall back on, or neighbors, or anybody. Yet we are coming to think that the only form of possible life is this kind of “nuclear” family. That could be dangerous.”

And that quote and that article beautifully support what I wrote in post #74. To refresh your memory, in that post I wrote - *Extended family was a big feature of western societies until very recently. There are even people who lament the fall away in importance of the extended family right here on CAF. The extended family has been replaced by using governments to take the place of family members looking after their own kith and kin. Now that’s another product of feminist left wing politics. You know, freeing the woman from home duties so she can have a fancy job and party like a man. *.

That quote from Margaret Mead is from 1963. She is there lamenting exactly what I pointed out, which is what even people here on CAF also lament; the isolated family. That is in contrast to her quote stating that the nuclear family has been a part of human civilisation since the dawn of time. She wrote that in the 1950s. The nuclear family was a part of an extended family, all there to help.

If anything, I would suggest that the interview from which this quotation comes very much supports the view expressed in the article I linked previously, that the nuclear family, and our modern conceptions of marriage itself, are products of capitalism and of the romantic expectation that there will be one person out there who is our ‘soul mate’, who will fulfil all our emotional and social needs, and that if we don’t find this person, or if we fail to remain with them for life and be actively happy and in love with them, it’s because we’re not ‘working’ hard enough at it.

I put it to you that the break up of the extended family, which is causing the isolation of the nuclear family, is the direct result of the adoption of socialist principles as demanded by groups such as the radical left wing feminist groups. It is they who wanted to be free to pursue careers at the expense of the family unit, so up went the demand for government funded child care. It was they who screamed for the adoption of no fault divorce, so they could easily walk away from the opression of marriage. It was they who demanded we believe in the exclusion of women from history as proof that history had disadvantaged women and therefore was gender biased. They conveniently forgot that history was made by men and women whose mothers stayed at home to make sure parenting was done correctly. It was the adoption of socialist principles that allowed for the introduction of homes for the elderly, subsidised by government, so the ‘nuclear family’ wouldn’t be burdened by having to care for the oldies. We forgot the old adage that it takes a village to raise a child and tried replacing the ‘village’ with government funding. It has failed dismally.