XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.survival
From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk
On 26/09/2014 17:21, RD Sandman wrote:
> "Alex W." wrote in
> news:c8kor9F3vopU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 25/09/2014 19:11, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> Marriage between a man and woman is a religious construct for the
>>>>> purposes of procreation. Unfortunately over the years people have
>>> made
>>>>> it become a legal one. Not everyone follows the Christian
>>> bible....see
>>>>> Mormonism, or Islam.
>>>>
>>>> Or indeed the Old Testament part of the bible: many of its heroes
>>>> and prophets indulged in multiple wives, surrogate motherhood and
>>>> other shenanigans the modern churches forbid.
>>>>
>>>> You're wrong about your definition, though: marriage is not a
>>>> religious construct per se. The god-botherers want to define the
>>>> debate in those terms, and they are dead wrong.
>>>
>>> god-botherers? I am agnostic.
>>
>> I wasn't referring to you but to the general mass of those who see
>> this debate and the concept of marriage in religious terms only.
>
> Cool, some folks see everything under the light of religion. I realize
> the effect has on lots of things....like old Sunday Blue Laws, marriage,
> etc..
Labour laws, usury laws, welfare....
>
>>> Within the confines of their faith,
>>>> they have a certain definition, but in civil society marriage is a
>>>> contract, and no more.
>>>
>>> Yes, and the reason it was defined as man-woman was because that it
>>> what it was historically. How did it get that way? Via religious
>>> precips.
>>
>> Here's an interesting factoid: Judaism does not ban polygamy. They
>> simply do not practise it, but they do not see any theological bar to
>> such a union.
>>
>> As to who first defined it as a union between man and woman only, and
>> for what reason, may be a chicken-and-egg question. Was it for
>> practical reasons (the tribe needs to breed or die) or because some
>> shaman dreamed up a divine commandment? My personal opinion is that
>> religion itself adopted this model for the same reason they drew up
>> dress codes and dietary rules: for social identity, cohesion and
>> control.
>
> I think that propagation also had something to do with it. Man-man or
> womman-woman don't produce much in the name of chidren or support in
> later years. In some cases, women that cannot bear children anymore were
> simply placed on an ice floe and waved goodbye to.
That would not seem to be a big issue, IMO: there are not that many
same-sex folk to threaten overall population figures or growth, and
same-sex unions could offer a useful way of placing unwanted or orphaned
children.
>
>>> Historically, it has always been a construction
>>>> to organise and dispose of very practical issues such as
>>>> inheritance, rights and duties, assets and liabilities, and
>>>> suchlike.
>>>
>>> Which have absolutely nothing to do with marriage itself. You may be
>>> married or single and still be involved in all you mentioned above.
>>
>> Involved in, yes, but the bonds are not nearly as strong or close. A
>> marital group of whatever composition is an unreserved and synergistic
>> pooling of resources.
>
> Possibly, but I know a couple of couples who are together without the
> legal bonds of matrimony, yet you will not find a stronger bond between
> two people than you will find in those couples. Pity the man (or woman)
> who comes between them ;)
Sure, and I know those couples myself. But are they the majority? Hardly.
>
> It is also universally recognised as the most
>> fundamental social unit, which makes it much easier to construct
>> long-term planning and legal provisions around it. This, in fact, is
>> a major reason why gay and Lesbian couples have been fighting for
>> equal standing: because over the years the state, business and society
>> have built up a dense web of special status provisions, rights and
>> privileges that kick in automatically, benefits both legal and
>> financial (tax!). To try and replicate these individually is
>> impossible.
>
> Correct. It would also be a lot simpler if those couples would refer to
> their situation as a civil union (in lieu of the term, marriage) and get
> the laws changed to recognize that. The problem lies in making those
> changes a law at a time is a long, laborious process and things get lost
> along the way.
Which is why Gays and Lesbians are fighting for the right to participate
in this institution. Why create something new if it is so much easier
to extend the pool of eligible people?
Also, the reverse is equally true. Why don't married hetero couples
refer to it as civil union when speaking in secular context? If
marriage is sacred, let it stay in the sacred arena, in religion.
Nor would such a nomenclature end the debate, I fear. The opponents do
not restrict themselves to keeping gay couples from a divinely blessed
state of union: they want to deny them their civil rights. If a cleric
and his congregation wish to interpret their deity's law in such a way
as to deny couplehood to gays, that is their internal decision, but they
are attempting to force secular authorities to submit to their views.
>
>>> The farmer's
>>>> daughter marries the neighbouring farmer's son because it takes two
>>>> to work a farm and keep the lands together. The merchant marries
>>>> his daughter off to his journeyman in order to ensure the
>>>> continuation of his business. These concerns are not at all
>>>> religious but of huge practical and social importance, even today.
>>>
>>> We will have to agree to disagree on the original reasons for
>>> marriage or a union to be of mixed sex.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be boring if everybody agreed all the time...
>
> I believe the word to describe it is "oatmeal". ;)
>
Even oatmeal can be tasty if enough Guinness is added...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
