Separation of religious and civil marriage

[Corki]

Eventually it will stop being “same-sex” or “gay” marriage, and will just be called “marriage.”.

And that’s just my point. At that point, “marriage” will no longer mean the same thing it always has, if that point hasn’t been reached already. People who want to refer to a real marriage will have to add a prefix to identify it as a marriage according to the traditional definition rather than a “marriage” according to the new definition. We will have what the culture calls “marriage” that will be defined as any two or more adults or near adults of human or near human characteristics who choose to be identified as spouses and enter into a contract to solidify that relationship. And that’s a whole different construct than Marriage, traditionally defined, which is two adults, one man and one woman who join to form a family unit for the good of each other, any children that result from the union, and society - with or without religious recognition.

 

[Bradski]

And that’s just my point. At that point, “marriage” will no longer mean the same thing it always has, if that point hasn’t been reached already. People who want to refer to a real marriage will have to add a prefix to identify it as a marriage according to the traditional definition rather than a “marriage” according to the new definition.

As I said earlier, you are already in that position. There are a number of situations where the Catholic Church doesn’t recognise the validity of a particular marriage. The number of divorced people who remarry outnumber any potential gay marriages by a simply staggering amount and you seem to cope quite well with that.

So if that is your point, it’s a very bad one.

 

[DrTaffy]

Even if homosexual ‘marriage’ was legal historically in many places, that doesn’t make it morally right. There have been plenty of things legal and not legal that have been practiced that are reprehensible.

I absolutely agree. This is one more reason why I think the argument that “same sex marriage has never existed in previous civilisations so must be wrong” is silly. It is based on both a false assertion and a fallacy.

Where was marriage legally recognised in any of the places you mention between people of the same gender?

To the best of my belief, all of them. The most obvious cases being the hittite code of law and the ones where I have given quotes.

Certainly, many anti-gay marriage historians (especially catholics) have spent a lot of ink on trying to discredit them, but have, in my view, failed.

After all, if you are trying to make the argument that “same sex marriage has never existed in previous civilisations” it is up to you to prove your basic assertion. Not just demand that others disprove it or accept it as true. I have given you examples of civilisations that are reported as having had same sex marriage, with no reason to believe that these marriages were treated differently from any other. The ball is in your court.

Follow The Footnote or the Advocate as Historian of Same-Sex Marriage attempts to deal with a lot of the claims about historical ‘marriage’ by people such as William Eskridge:

scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1468&context=lawreview

Have you read it? Were you impressed?

Because I find it appallingly amateurish - the language is blatantly perjorative and biased, the argumentation sloppy, and many of the sentiments appalling. Take this quote:

Second, he immediately shifts attention away from major and important world civilizations to the less significant ones, the tangential, the small societies on the margin.

So we are to believe that examples drawn from african or native american culture ‘don’t count’ because they are not “major and important world civilizations” like nice european judeo-christian cultures?

Likewise the case of the Igbo is simply dismissed on the assertion that the relationship was not sexual.
a) So what? This does nothing to change the clear identification of this same-sex union as marriage - if anything it only highlights how ‘marriage’ has meant many different things to different cultures. The only universal common denominator I can suggest is forming new family units.
b)amusingly, this assertion is supported solely by the opinion of modern Igbo. Yet elsewhere the authors sneer at a detailed and fully referenced book by Will Roscoe merely because he is a gay native american. Presumably either because he is gay, and so must be lying, or because he is a member of a “small”, “tangential” culture such as the Native Americans and so doesn’t ‘count’.:dts: But who better to advise us on Native american attitudes to homosexuality? White heterosexual middle class Catholic Law Students?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I absolutely agree. This is one more reason why I think the argument that “same sex marriage has never existed in previous civilisations so must be wrong” is silly. It is based on both a false assertion and a fallacy.

To the best of my belief, all of them. The most obvious cases being the hittite code of law and the ones where I have given quotes.

Certainly, many anti-gay marriage historians (especially catholics) have spent a lot of ink on trying to discredit them, but have, in my view, failed.

After all, if you are trying to make the argument that “same sex marriage has never existed in previous civilisations” it is up to you to prove your basic assertion. Not just demand that others disprove it or accept it as true. I have given you examples of civilisations that are reported as having had same sex marriage, with no reason to believe that these marriages were treated differently from any other. The ball is in your court.

Have you read it? Were you impressed?

Because I find it appallingly amateurish - the language is blatantly perjorative and biased, the argumentation sloppy, and many of the sentiments appalling. Take this quote:

So we are to believe that examples drawn from african or native american culture ‘don’t count’ because they are not “major and important world civilizations” like nice european judeo-christian cultures?

Likewise the case of the Igbo is simply dismissed on the assertion that the relationship was not sexual.
a) So what? This does nothing to change the clear identification of this same-sex union as marriage - if anything it only highlights how ‘marriage’ has meant many different things to different cultures. The only universal common denominator I can suggest is forming new family units.
b)amusingly, this assertion is supported solely by the opinion of modern Igbo. Yet elsewhere the authors sneer at a detailed and fully referenced book by Will Roscoe merely because he is a gay native american. Presumably either because he is gay, and so must be lying, or because he is a member of a “small”, “tangential” culture such as the Native Americans and so doesn’t ‘count’.:dts: But who better to advise us on Native american attitudes to homosexuality? White heterosexual middle class Catholic Law Students?

There may be Africans that probably know more about historical Western culture then some Westerers/Europeans do, likewise there are some Westerners/Europeans who may know more about various African cultures than some Africans do. The point I am trying to make is, is just because a person has a particular ethnic background and writes about a different ethnic culture, that does not mean that person nor people do not have knowledge on a different ethnic culture and doesn’t mean they necessarily less about a different culture than somebody from that culture / ethnic group.

Regarding the Igbo, the article goes quite in depth about Igbo culture, so how it does it simply dismiss it because of relationships not being sexual?

They also say in the article, and I paraphrase them, that non Western cultures around the world have not had legal homosexual ‘marriage’ on page 1324/55, so they are not isolating Western culture or Judeo culture as only opposing it.

Isn’t it just a reality that there have been more major civilisations than others? Do you think that is offensive for me to say that or for Peter Lubin and Dwight’s article to claim that there are ‘major civilisations?’

On Page 1276/7 the article discusses how they believe William Eskridge writes ‘union’ as as a synonym for ‘marriage.’ But a union does not necessarily mean a legally recognised marriage, does it? William Eskridge could be misinterpreting.

John Boswell has been refuted over and over again regards some of his claims regarding adelphopoiesis. He has even claimed Jesus and John were, ‘the most controversial same-sex couple in the Christian tradition.’ William Eskridge has also claimed that Sergius and Bacchus were ‘male lovers.’ These claims alone should raise questions on the veracity on other claims John Boswell and William Eskridge have made about historical homosexual ‘marriage.’ John Boswell and William Eskridge do cite sources, but the interpretation of some of those sources can be debated, as can be seen with Peter Lubin and Dwight Duncan’s comments about how William Eskridge interprets a source regarding Hittite culture, more broadly than just regarding homosexual ‘marriage.’

 

[PRmerger]

As I said earlier, you are already in that position. There are a number of situations where the Catholic Church doesn’t recognise the validity of a particular marriage. The number of divorced people who remarry outnumber any potential gay marriages by a simply staggering amount and you seem to cope quite well with that.

No, we don’t “cope” with that quite well. It is a great sadness indeed.

We no more “cope” with folks leaving the Church to re-marry than we “cope” with folks leaving the Church because they deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[PRmerger]

Awesome!

To be certain, I did a search on nuptial and as I suspected it is gender neutral.

You will never find, in the history of any description of any marriage being “nuptial”, a marriage between 2 men or 2 women.

 

[Corki]

As I said earlier, you are already in that position. There are a number of situations where the Catholic Church doesn’t recognise the validity of a particular marriage. The number of divorced people who remarry outnumber any potential gay marriages by a simply staggering amount and you seem to cope quite well with that.

So if that is your point, it’s a very bad one.

That’s an apples and oranges comparison. As you point out the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize the validity of some** particular** marriages. It isn’t because of **the kind of **marriage but because of the individual disposition of one or both participants.

Take your example of divorced and remarried individuals. In some cases, those marriages are valid, in others they are not. Each case must be evaluated individually. There is nothing about divorce and remarriage that changes the definition of marriage. Calling same-sex unions “marriage” does change the definition of marriage.

 

[Bradski]

That’s an apples and oranges comparison. As you point out the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize the validity of some** particular** marriages. It isn’t because of **the kind of **marriage but because of the individual disposition of one or both participants.

That is so much fairy floss…

So we have a couple who want to marry but the church won’t recognise it as a marriage. The state will, so they get married in a civil ceremony. You don’t consider them married but most other people do. Are you lying awake at night worrying about the sanctity of holy matrimony? Are you peppering forums such as this complaining that ‘marriage will no longer mean the same thing it always has’? Do you fear for your children? Is your marriage under threat?

I’ll save you the time in having to reply. Unless I’m very much mistaken, the answers are no, no, no and no. But if you want to put me straight, then after nine years and 14,000 plus posts, there must be dozens of threads where you have been involved in passionately discussing the millions of marriages that aren’t really marriages at all. That is, apart from the countless posts on Gay Marriages And The End Of The World As We Know It.

Give me some links to them. Show me that you are not just arguing against gay marriage but that you have spent time and effort in supporting marriage itself.

And while you are digging those up you can have a think about where this debate is going. Which is the same direction as the debate on contraception went. And that’s ‘went’ as in past tense, because that discussion is no longer even a discussion. People long ago decided that they might like to have sex just for the fun of it (I know, it’s really disturbing) and thought that, hey – it actually won’t be The End Of The World As We Know It if we use contraception.

Now most people are realising, primarily because discussions like this one are going on in work places, bars, around dinner tables, in letters to the editor, in talk shows, around the water cooler etc. that there are a minority of people, although I would say a significant minority, who don’t really have very good arguments against it, and are reduced to tossing into their word salad such terms as paedophile, bestiality, sodomy and perverted. These ugly terms hang around like a bad smell and reasonable people are offended by them. And reasonable people (and they are in the majority) can see that if a few gay people get married then, again, it won’t be The End Of Civilisation.

I told PR earlier that the horse has not only bolted but people are dismantling the stable. It won’t be very long indeed before people forget there was one there in the first place.

 

[PRmerger]

I told PR earlier that the horse has not only bolted but people are dismantling the stable. It won’t be very long indeed before people forget there was one there in the first place.

That’s arguable.

And irrelevant, anyway. Even if the horse is bolted, it’s our moral imperative to rein him back in so he doesn’t kill folks on his wild, destructive rampage.

 

[Bradski]

Even if the horse is bolted, it’s our moral imperative to rein im back in so he doesn’t kill folks on his wild, destructive rampage.

Yeah, you and a couple of people are running around screaming: ‘Look out for the wild horse, he’ll kill us all! Dear God, think of the children why won’t you! Danger! We must control The Beast!’

And everyone is looking around to see what the fuss is about and there’s a horse in the corner of the field chewing grass and minding it’s own business and people are thinking: ‘Is that what they’re worried about? Seriously? What on earth…?’

And they look at each other and shrug their shoulders and get on with their picnic or playing with the kids or dismantling the stable and the horse keeps on minding it’s own business and chewing the grass. And one day some old guy will say: Hey, remember once when some people used to come around now and then and ‘warn us about the horse’?

And no-one will.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Yeah, you and a couple of people are running around screaming: ‘Look out for the wild horse, he’ll kill us all! Dear God, think of the children why won’t you! Danger! We must control The Beast!’

And everyone is looking around to see what the fuss is about and there’s a horse in the corner of the field chewing grass and minding it’s own business and people are thinking: ‘Is that what they’re worried about? Seriously? What on earth…?’

And they look at each other and shrug their shoulders and get on with their picnic or playing with the kids or dismantling the stable and the horse keeps on minding it’s own business and chewing the grass. And one day some old guy will say: Hey, remember once when some people used to come around now and then and ‘warn us about the horse’?

And no-one will.

Abortion may be a different issue but you know your horse analogy, I bet pro-choicers in 1973 could have made a similar anaology relating to abortion after the Roe v. Wade ruling. Homosexual ‘marriage’ still remains a divisive and conflicting issue. People who are pro-marriage one man/one woman should be concerned when it isn’t.

 

[frobert]

You will never find, in the history of any description of any marriage being “nuptial”, a marriage between 2 men or 2 women.

You are correct. I should have been clearer by saying I searched on the dictionary definition of nuptial. The dictionary and Wikipedia definitions of marriage, nuptial and conjugal are all gender neutral.

Because same sex marriage is a recent phenomenon only recent history accounts would describe nuptial as the legal marriage or union of a man and a woman and in a growing number of jurisdictions between two people of the same sex.

 

[PRmerger]

Because same sex marriage is a recent phenomenon…

Thank you for acknowledging this!

Lots of bandwith has been wasted by your side trying to say that same sex marriage is as old as civilization itself.

Would that some of your fellow same-sex “marriage” advocates would see the truth of this as well.

 

[PRmerger]

Yeah, you and a couple of people are running around screaming: ‘Look out for the wild horse, he’ll kill us all! Dear God, think of the children why won’t you! Danger! We must control The Beast!’

That’s a bit insulting, friend. Your portrayal of me as some sort shrieking alarmist is beneath you.

And everyone is looking around to see what the fuss is about and there’s a horse in the corner of the field chewing grass and minding it’s own business and people are thinking: ‘Is that what they’re worried about? Seriously? What on earth…?’

So now I’m confused. Your metaphor is that the horse is out of the barn and can’t be brought back…right?

The picture you have of a docile horse relaxing in a field is inconsistent with your metaphor.

If he’s out of the barn but calmly chewing his cud (do horses chew cud? I have no idea and couldn’t care less, really)…then what’s the problem? We will just gently bring him back to his barn.

And thus your point that the horse is out of the barn is otiose.

 

[frobert]

And that’s just my point. At that point, “marriage” will no longer mean the same thing it always has, if that point hasn’t been reached already. People who want to refer to a real marriage will have to add a prefix to identify it as a marriage according to the traditional definition rather than a “marriage” according to the new definition. We will have what the culture calls “marriage” that will be defined as any two or more adults or near adults of human or near human characteristics who choose to be identified as spouses and enter into a contract to solidify that relationship. And that’s a whole different construct than Marriage, traditionally defined, which is two adults, one man and one woman who join to form a family unit for the good of each other, any children that result from the union, and society - with or without religious recognition.

Your argument makes no sense. For the past several centuries people had a choice between a civil marriage or a marriage with a religious blessing/ceremony. Both types of marriages give the parties legal rights and responsibilities. The only thing that has changed is that today, in a growing number of jurisdictions, same sex couples now have the same choices along with the same legal rights and responsibilities. That some people think that gays should not enjoy equal marriage rights has nothing to do with defining marriage other than marriage is now more inclusive.

 

[frobert]

Thank you for acknowledging this!

Lots of bandwith has been wasted by your side trying to say that same sex marriage is as old as civilization itself.

Would that some of your fellow same-sex “marriage” advocates would see the truth of this as well.

I believe you are mistaken and seem to be grasping at straws to divert attention. You are wrong in conflating same sex coupling throughout history with marriage. Conditions where not conducive to same sex marriage until recently. Throughout most of history and most societies homosexuality was not understood and feared as it is today in parts of Africa. In the past it suited the church to keep that way. I am sure you can find examples where some misinformed gays and straights wasted bandwidth on the subject, heck, wasting bandwidth seems to be the norm on CAF but that is not my problem.

Back on topic, its good you agree that the definitions of marriage, nuptial and conjugal are gender neutral.

 

[marymary1975]

Yeah, you and a couple of people are running around screaming: ‘Look out for the wild horse, he’ll kill us all! Dear God, think of the children why won’t you! Danger! We must control The Beast!’

And everyone is looking around to see what the fuss is about and there’s a horse in the corner of the field chewing grass and minding it’s own business and people are thinking: ‘Is that what they’re worried about? Seriously? What on earth…?’

And they look at each other and shrug their shoulders and get on with their picnic or playing with the kids or dismantling the stable and the horse keeps on minding it’s own business and chewing the grass. And one day some old guy will say: Hey, remember once when some people used to come around now and then and ‘warn us about the horse’?

And no-one will.

This was exactly the same thing that back in the 50’s proposers of no fault divorce used to say to everyone who was against no fault divorce. What are you people worried about? Seriously? How come a few people using no fault divorce because they are in a terrible situation are going to affect marriages? How come other people using no fault ddivorce are going to affect my marriage? You think no fault divorce is going to create a crisis in marriage…really? You are crazy.

The country that does not remember its history is condemned to repeat it.

 

[Corki]

Your argument makes no sense. For the past several centuries people had a choice between a civil marriage or a marriage with a religious blessing/ceremony. Both types of marriages give the parties legal rights and responsibilities. The only thing that has changed is that today, in a growing number of jurisdictions, same sex couples now have the same choices along with the same legal rights and responsibilities. That some people think that gays should not enjoy equal marriage rights has nothing to do with defining marriage other than marriage is now more inclusive.

You are creating a false dichotomy. This isn’t about the difference between civil and religious marriage. There are all kinds of civil marriages that are recognized and respected by the Church and by other moral individuals. It’s about the difference between marriage as it has been defined for millennium vs. a** new concept** that activists also want to be called “marriage”.

It’s a little like people deciding that their pets are really their children. There is a whole industry that revolves around this fiction that the humans are the parents and the animals are the children and not pets. Just because a lot of people say it, doesn’t make it true.

Redefining marriage to be “inclusive” of couplings that are impossible in a real marriage is still redefining marriage no matter what people want to call it. Heck, even Websters is changing its definition - that is literally redefining marriage.

 

[stewstew03]

Yeah, you and a couple of people are running around screaming: ‘Look out for the wild horse, he’ll kill us all! Dear God, think of the children why won’t you! Danger! We must control The Beast!’

And everyone is looking around to see what the fuss is about and there’s a horse in the corner of the field chewing grass and minding it’s own business and people are thinking: ‘Is that what they’re worried about? Seriously? What on earth…?’

And they look at each other and shrug their shoulders and get on with their picnic or playing with the kids or dismantling the stable and the horse keeps on minding it’s own business and chewing the grass. And one day some old guy will say: Hey, remember once when some people used to come around now and then and ‘warn us about the horse’?

And no-one will.

This sounds like projection. If anything, the horse quietly chewing grass in the field is the Church – and then some aggressive hog farmer comes along and begins whipping the horse because it’s not in the pigsty with the rest of the farm animals that have gathered around the trough. Of course, any animal that doesn’t feed at the trough must “hate” the other animals, right?

Let’s be honest - this isn’t about “marriage.” This is about accepting homosexual behavior without condition. Anything less than that is “anti-gay.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Heck, even Websters is changing its definition - that is literally redefining marriage.

Webster’s definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. They track word usage. It’s not that words are redefined because Webster’s changed it’s listed definition. It’s that the listed definition was changed by usage.

BTW: Webster’s also updated “literally” with the definition “virtually” (see also hyperbole). To avoid ambiguity for certain audiences consider using other words such as “actually” or dropping the word all together. The two senses of the word usage are almost antonyms of each other.