Separation of religious and civil marriage

[DrTaffy]

To start with, I note that you have not even attempted to answer the main point of my article - that the assertion that there has been no recognition of same sex marriages in any society, going back “150 years, or 300, or 500, or 1,000 or 2,000 or 5,000 or as far back in human history as you wish across the planet” is not only utterly unsupported but also needs to prove that each of the cases I cite did not amount to recognition of same sex marriage.

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.

I have not said they did. Quite the opposite.

I merely drew attention to Lubin and Duncan’s insinuation that Will Roscoe’s carefully referenced book should be dismissed simply because he is of the exact ethnic culture he is talking about. Especially as they lean heavily on unrecorded ‘interviews’ with modern day Nigerians to refute Eskridge’s statements later on!

Do you not see the hypocrisy?

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?

Because it gives no other reason to dismiss the identification of this relationship in the original source as ‘marriage’?

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.

If you are saying, as they seem to do, that some non-judeo-christian cultures have also opposed same sex marriage, sure. AFAIK they (and you) do so without evidence, but I am sure there are cases. So what? How does this help defend the assertion that same sex marriage has never existed in other cultures until today?

Isn’t it just a reality that there have been more major civilisations than others?

No? Not if you mean ‘major’ in terms of size (population or geographical or whatever) when I would imagine that there have been far more small tribes and island nations than vast Roman or British style Empires.

And so what? How is this relevant?

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?’

I think it is offensive to suggest that the history of Africans or Native Americans can be dismissed and ignored just because you consider them to be “less significant … tangential … small societies on the margin”. This is especially true in the USA, where this article was published, where the original inhabitants see their traditional marriage traditions denied by the federal state, then see these privileged Catholic law students defend this by dismissing the Native American history as not worth considering because the native culture is apparently insignificant!

 

[frobert]

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.

It is all about the difference between civil marriages and religious marriages. You have a belief that shapes your opinion of what marriage is which is fine, but the state is not obligated to adopt your belief for civil marriages. That civil marriage are more inclusive in a growing number of jurisdictions does nothing to limit yours, mine or anyone’s else’s choice of legal marriage. I have no objections to your belief that the definition has been changed or your lobbying the state to adopt religious views. BTW, I am not arguing that the definition of marriage has never changed which I believe is a waste of time.

 

[Bradski]

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

Then my apologies.

But I’ll take the opportunity to make a point. It may have come across that I was implying that you were some sort of crazy bag lady, which wasn’t the intention. But you felt offended.

Now let’s say that I happen to be gay and married to my partner. In the normal course of these type discussions, I will, by various members of the forum, be accused of being a pervert. My private sex life will be held as disgusting and debased. I will be associated with paedophilia and bestiality. It will be intimated that I am a corrupting influence on young children and I will be accused of spreading death and disease.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how offended do you think I would be?

 

[_Abyssinia]

To start with, I note that you have not even attempted to answer the main point of my article - that the assertion that there has been no recognition of same sex marriages in any society, going back “150 years, or 300, or 500, or 1,000 or 2,000 or 5,000 or as far back in human history as you wish across the planet” is not only utterly unsupported but also needs to prove that each of the cases I cite did not amount to recognition of same sex marriage.

The article by Dwight Duncan Lubin doesn’t declare that there has never been any recognition.

Have you searched for the references that you cited? How can I get hold of those sources to confirm or refute, when they are not all in their original form online? Peter Lubin and Dwight Duncan appear to have got hold on some of the sources and/or have knowledge and/or researched some of the cultures they write about, and you can see for yourself what they have to say.

I have not said they did. Quite the opposite.

I merely drew attention to Lubin and Duncan’s insinuation that Will Roscoe’s carefully referenced book should be dismissed simply because he is of the exact ethnic culture he is talking about. Especially as they lean heavily on unrecorded ‘interviews’ with modern day Nigerians to refute Eskridge’s statements later on!

Do you not see the hypocrisy?

You believe that because they note that Will Roscoe is homosexual, they are dismissing his book?

Because it gives no other reason to dismiss the identification of this relationship in the original source as ‘marriage’?

If you are saying, as they seem to do, that some non-judeo-christian cultures have also opposed same sex marriage, sure. AFAIK they (and you) do so without evidence, but I am sure there are cases. So what? How does this help defend the assertion that same sex marriage has never existed in other cultures until today?

I haven’t said on this thread that they have never existed, I have questioned the legal recognition of these marriages. But I am skeptical of some of the claims of where it is claimed they existed, and I think I have a right to question the veracity of some of these claims considering as what said in the previous thread what has been claimed about Jesus and John and Sergius and Bacchus.

No? Not if you mean ‘major’ in terms of size (population or geographical or whatever) when I would imagine that there have been far more small tribes and island nations than vast Roman or British style Empires.

And so what? How is this relevant?

I think it is offensive to suggest that the history of Africans or Native Americans can be dismissed and ignored just because you consider them to be “less significant … tangential … small societies on the margin”. This is especially true in the USA, where this article was published, where the original inhabitants see their traditional marriage traditions denied by the federal state, then see these privileged Catholic law students defend this by dismissing the Native American history as not worth considering because the native culture is apparently insignificant!

I can’t necessarily speak for Dwight Duncan and Peter Lubin but I am talking here about these societies in the context of marriage, which has a long societal history, and the reality is that is that a lot of the examples of homosexual ‘marriage’ historically do seem to come from smaller communities, not from larger civilisations. I am not trying to dismiss entire cultures, but as has been said, I am talking here about these cultures within the larger global framework.

 

[Rau]

Then my apologies.

But I’ll take the opportunity to make a point. It may have come across that I was implying that you were some sort of crazy bag lady, which wasn’t the intention. But you felt offended.

Now let’s say that I happen to be gay and married to my partner. In the normal course of these type discussions, I will, by various members of the forum, be accused of being a pervert. My private sex life will be held as disgusting and debased. I will be associated with paedophilia and bestiality. It will be intimated that I am a corrupting influence on young children and I will be accused of spreading death and disease.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how offended do you think I would be?

On the presumption that most of it is untrue, I imagine you could be most offended.

The only assumption I would make, in the circumstances you set out, is that you are engaging in sexual activity with your partner. I assume this because marriage has been long understood as a sexual relationship. The implications of that (in the context of man+woman) is what gives rise, in large part, to the acclamation that States give to marriage. Of course, we are witnessing a change to that in recent times.

 

[PRmerger]

You are wrong in conflating same sex coupling throughout history with marriage.

This is exactly right! :dancing::extrahappy::clapping:

People here who have been professing that there were same sex marriages from the beginning of civilization: please take heed of frobert’s assertion! He is indeed correct!

Please see the article cited by Abyssinia which I dearly loved.

It says exactly that.

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

 

[PRmerger]

Now let’s say that I happen to be gay and married to my partner. In the normal course of these type discussions, I will, by various members of the forum, be accused of being a pervert. My private sex life will be held as disgusting and debased. I will be associated with paedophilia and bestiality. It will be intimated that I am a corrupting influence on young children and I will be accused of spreading death and disease.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how offended do you think I would be?

Oh, if any Catholic called you a pervert for being homosexual I would definitely call this poster out and point out how he is contravening his own Church’s teaching.

Not to mention I would report this poster for grave uncharity.

Now, back to the metaphor: this horse that’s out of the barn…let’s say that there’s a whole bunch of folks relaxin’ in the pasture, right in his path, and they are likely to get run over, stomped and kicked in the head…

don’t you think the right thing for any person to do is say, “Hey! Get out of the way! A wild horse is coming your way! We are doing everything we can to get him back to his barn where he belongs!”

And if these folks respond like this:

Creative Jobs :: Careers for Graphic Designers, Copywriters, Social Media Managers, Proof Readers and More.

Well…

If these folks are told that a wild horse is running towards them and they don’t get out of the way, … all we could conclude is that these people are a few clowns short of a circus.

 

[PRmerger]

Then my apologies.

Ah. Okey-dokey.

The “I’m sorry if” non-apology.

geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/I%27m_sorry_if_you_were_offended

But since I like you so much I am ok with that type of non apology.

 

[Bradski]

Oh, if any Catholic called you a pervert for being homosexual I would definitely call this poster out and point out how he is contravening his own Church’s teaching.

If someone says I steal things then they are calling me a thief. If someone says I have murdered someone, then they are calling me a murderer. If someone accuses me of adultery, then they are calling me an adulterer.

What would your description be of someone who commits perverted acts?

 

[1newcatholic]

What would your description be of someone who commits perverted acts?

Sounds like a congressman.

 

[Bradski]

That I like…

 

[frobert]

This is exactly right! :dancing::extrahappy::clapping:

People here who have been professing that there were same sex marriages from the beginning of civilization: please take heed of frobert’s assertion! He is indeed correct!

Please see the article cited by Abyssinia which I dearly loved.

It says exactly that.

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

You give me way too much praise, I am neither a historian nor gay activist, I was simply stating an opinion from a cursory read same as you do.

I am rest peacefully now that I know we are in agreement there has been gay coupling throughout history and that the dictionary definition of marriage and nuptial are gender neutral.

 

[frobert]

If someone says I steal things then they are calling me a thief. If someone says I have murdered someone, then they are calling me a murderer. If someone accuses me of adultery, then they are calling me an adulterer.

What would your description be of someone who commits perverted acts?

You have to give more information. Perverted can mean many things, be subject to different interpretations and faith beliefs. For some a gay marriage is perverted for others it is a marriage.

 

[1newcatholic]

You have to give more information. Perverted can mean many things, be subject to different interpretations and faith beliefs. For some a gay marriage is perverted for others it is a marriage.

I think the point being made is that calling someone’s actions perverted is like calling them a pervert, even if you try and split hairs and disassociate the sinner from the sin.

 

[Bradski]

You have to give more information. Perverted can mean many things, be subject to different interpretations and faith beliefs. For some a gay marriage is perverted for others it is a marriage.

Having sex with someone of the same gender should be enough detail for you.

If someone is constantly and regularly committing what I consider to be perverted acts, I’d have no problem calling that person a pervert. How would you describe that person?

 

[PRmerger]

If someone says I steal things then they are calling me a thief. If someone says I have murdered someone, then they are calling me a murderer. If someone accuses me of adultery, then they are calling me an adulterer.

What would your description be of someone who commits perverted acts?

I would call his actions disordered.

Perverted is not the language of the Church. You can search every single Church document for the word “pervert” or “perverted” and you will find nary a sign that this is how the Church views homosexuals and their sexual activities.

 

[Rau]

I would call his actions disordered.

Perverted is not the language of the Church. You can search every single Church document for the word “pervert” or “perverted” and you will find nary a sign that this is how the Church views homosexuals and their sexual activities.

Yes, and before anyone jumps up with outrage and thinks “disordered” is a medical diagnosis, I refer you to this enumeration by example of the theological meaning of that word:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12530647&highlight=disordered#post12530647

 

[Bradski]

Perverted is not the language of the Church. You can search every single Church document for the word “pervert” or “perverted” and you will find nary a sign that this is how the Church views homosexuals and their sexual activities.

That is why I said this:

I will, by various members of the forum, be accused of being a pervert.

I would call his actions disordered.

I’m not sure how you could redefine his actions as I didn’t specify what they were. I just said that that you considered them perverted. There must be some acts that you consider to be such. If that was the case, if someone persistently performs what you consider to be perverted acts, then wouldn’t you consider him a pervert?

 

[Rau]

…if someone persistently performs what you consider to be perverted acts, then wouldn’t you consider him a pervert?

Despite the dictionary definition of the word being arguably applicable to the circumstance you outline, we all make choices about the kinds of words we will use (even in our own mind). Labelling a person in this way also seems far more “final” than appropriate to reflect their behaviour. Noone is irredeemable, nor should they be intrinsically characterised by their actions, even if repeated.

We might say “I have been a liar”, but that is quite different than saying “I am a liar” - the latter seems a more permanent characterisation than a mere change of tense of the verb might reflect.

 

[Bradski]

We might say “I have been a liar”, but that is quite different than saying “I am a liar” - the latter seems a more permanent characterisation than a mere change of tense of the verb might reflect.

So much dancing around the point.

‘I have comitted perverted acts’ versus ‘I comit perverted acts on a regular basis’.

I see the difference and so do you. The latter is the phrase in question. Someone who comitts what you consider to be perverted acts on a regular basis.

How do you describe that person?