|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 3, 2007 19:42:57 GMT -5
In both the pro drug culture and the pro homosexual marriage there is a push to have the society if the the official government endorse a lifestyle choice that many see as harmful both to individuals and the society at large.
Yes I know that such arguments have been used to stop or slow down a lot of good changes, but that does not invalidate the concern.
I've never argued that interracial marriages are immoral, but their are some risks. I'm opposed to intercultural marriages in general because of the increased risk of divorce. Interracial marriages often result in biracial children. Our society has made a lot of progress in accepting people of different and mixed ethnic backgrounds (there is still a long ways to go) so the negative impact on children who are biracial is less than in the past. People tend to marry within their own ethnic group more often than not (at least in the North West). I don't think we need to ban bi racial marriages, but we also don't need public awareness campaigns to promote it. Bi-cultural marriages often have major problems as gender roles are often vastly different in various cultures. Some couples make things work most I have personally known have added problems because of the cultural differences.
Anyhow, the definition of marriage in this nation is a major factor in the culture. To have it altered in a way opposed by the majority of the nations view runs contrary to the principles on which the nation was founded and in my personal view will weakling our society a great deal.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 3, 2007 21:34:31 GMT -5
In both the pro drug culture and the pro homosexual marriage there is a push to have the society if the the official government endorse a lifestyle choice that many see as harmful both to individuals and the society at large. Yes I know that such arguments have been used to stop or slow down a lot of good changes, but that does not invalidate the concern. I've never argued that interracial marriages are immoral, but their are some risks. I'm opposed to intercultural marriages in general because of the increased risk of divorce. Interracial marriages often result in biracial children. Our society has made a lot of progress in accepting people of different and mixed ethnic backgrounds (there is still a long ways to go) so the negative impact on children who are biracial is less than in the past. People tend to marry within their own ethnic group more often than not (at least in the North West). I don't think we need to ban bi racial marriages, but we also don't need public awareness campaigns to promote it. Bi-cultural marriages often have major problems as gender roles are often vastly different in various cultures. Some couples make things work most I have personally known have added problems because of the cultural differences. Anyhow, the definition of marriage in this nation is a major factor in the culture. To have it altered in a way opposed by the majority of the nations view runs contrary to the principles on which the nation was founded and in my personal view will weakling our society a great deal. Interesting, is it not, that the current definition of marriage is not the definition used even 100 years ago. So much for tradition when it does not further your cause...
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 3, 2007 22:12:48 GMT -5
Which definition are you referring to?
Marriage's have been recognized in the western world as a union between man and women for a very very long time. Many rules around that union are being changed and played with. Some of these changes (women are not owned by their husbands) have been good. Others (drop of the hat divorce) have been harmful. Their have been a cases of multiple spouse marriages, but these are the exception and when last I check in this country illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 3, 2007 23:15:06 GMT -5
marriage 1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry).
"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part." [G.B. Shaw]
Marriage counselling first recorded 1945. Marriage bed, fig. of marital intercourse generally, is attested from 1590. marry 1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor"). Said from 1530 of the priest, etc., who performs the rite. wed O.E. weddian "to pledge, covenant to do something, marry," from P.Gmc. *wadjojanan (cf. O.N. veĆ°ja "to bet, wager," O.Fris. weddia "to promise," Goth. ga-wadjon "to betroth"), from PIE base *wadh- "to pledge, to redeem a pledge" (cf. L. vas, gen. vadis "bail, security," Lith. vaduoti "to redeem a pledge"). Sense remained "pledge" in other Gmc. languages (cf. Ger. Wette "bet, wager"); development to "marry" is unique to Eng. "marriage." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 03 Jul. 2007. <Dictionary.com dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage>.
|
|
doug
Student
Posts: 8
|
Post by doug on Jul 4, 2007 12:28:21 GMT -5
First of all, Happy fourth of July! to all the Americans in the audience ;D
With respect Teancum you are grasping at some very slippery straws with this one. I'm not sure which group or groups you refer to when you talk about the pro drug lobby. Is there a group advocating that addiction is a 'lifestyle choice' that we should advocate? In my experience, groups fighting for the rights of drug users are those that are fighting for the resources needed to provide the vital support that will help to get them off the drug. Yes there may be people who loved dropping some acid way back when and there are many addicted to one substance or another now. But I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest the state should support drug addicts physically harming themselves or stealing from those around them to get money for a fix. Whether you consider it from the point of view of the individual who has lost their life to an addiction or from the perspective of a global trade in illegal drugs that incorporates human trafficking and forced prostitution then it is obvious and clear that illegal drug use can cause society great harm. There is no similarity with the gay rights movement or any other social movement for that matter. We seek legally recognised equality to enhance our lives not to destroy ourselves or the lives of those around us.
Your reference to inter-racial marriage makes even less sense to me because it doesn't seem to tally with a point you made earlier. I think you said the reason marriage was soley the preserve of men and women was because they were two different experiences of life coming together to understand one another. Can you think of a better example of this than inter-racial marriage? Not to get too gooey about it but if you take two people from different cultures and have them learn about each other's world through love thats got to be a good thing.Some people are thrilled by the exotic and whilst you have point when you say the difference in culture may cause a certain amount of friction well so could anything. Should we keep to our own class as well? Not wed outside our religion?
I understand that gay people getting married is a new concept and as such causes difficulty but that isn't reason enough not to do it. Every major social change brought with it consternation of some kind but eventually gained acceptance. And if your basing your objections on religious grounds then whilst again I can understand that , as I've said before, the question of religion isn't involved when one considers that the union is a state sanctioned one.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 4, 2007 13:06:39 GMT -5
The lets all fry our brains movement did not last long, but their was a small group of people who where promoting it. The alls well while I'm high on pot is more recent and the negatives are less drastic and thus it has more people being in favor of it. (My only real point behind the whole drug thing it that some social changes some people want are bad).
As to the intercultural marriages, yes their is a lot that can be learned. Their is also a ton of harm that can come. I'm not suggesting it being outlawed, but people need to think long and hard before jumping into those relationships as they are a lot harder than mono cultural marriages (which are hard enough).
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 15, 2007 13:39:10 GMT -5
Mestemia I was thinking about you post about marriage and how long it has been around.
A year or two back I was talking to my sister about the Odyssey by Homer. (which Wiki say was written around 600-800 BC) Also the Bible which (despite questions as to how well it has come down) was more or less assembled by 400 or so AD. Their are references to marriage in many of the books and I highly doubt that someone in the latter dark ages took the time to insert all of it.
Both make reference to marriage and although the costumes differ they do point to the idea of marriage being around for a time before the 1200ish that you cited before.
Anyhow I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I had been to lazy up till now to give much thought to the post you had made before.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 15, 2007 14:58:43 GMT -5
Marriage has likely been around since men and women have been around. That is beside the point, really.
The point is what people consider a marriage to be. For the longest time marriage was nothing more that a commitment between two people. Then all of a sudden it was a commitment between one man and one woman.
That is the point. That marriage was not always defined as "one man to one woman", regardless of what 'traditionalists' would like for everyone to believe.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 15, 2007 16:47:02 GMT -5
Is there any evidence of a society in the past approving of a homosexual couple? I've heard that male homosexual activities where common in Rome and Greek culture, but not that anyone tried to make it into a marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Jul 15, 2007 21:08:45 GMT -5
Those relationships were considered acceptable only in very strict terms...an actual couple would have been ostracized.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jul 19, 2007 1:43:43 GMT -5
Yes, all marriage contracts found from those times have been explicitly between a man and a woman.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 19, 2007 10:19:19 GMT -5
Interesting left field-ness this topic has strayed into. The irrelevant history of heterosexual marriage in a topic about the banning of same sex marriage in the United States.
And yes, it is irrelevant to the legal system of the United States of America. When ya'll decide to get back on topic, please feel free to let me know.
And before anyone starts on the history of the word marriage bit, the only reason I brought up the history of the definition of the word marriage is because to many people attempt to claim that the word marriage has always been defined as one man to one woman.
|
|
doug
Student
Posts: 8
|
Post by doug on Jul 19, 2007 11:55:32 GMT -5
I think its true to say that an explicitly homosexual couple would not have been tolerated during those times. Higher death rates and smaller populations put an emphasis on having children that meant a couple who did not have children weren't doing their bit. Bi-sexual relations were therfore a more common expression of any 'gay-tendencies.' However, I think people are people whenever they happen to exisit. If there are men falling in love with men and women falling in love with women now its a pretty safe bet it happend then too. Societal disapproval just means things have to happen in secret.
As to all marriages being between one man and one woman thats not really true either. A girl became marraige material at the age her periods started. If she was twelve or thirteen and unmarried then people talked. Marriages between thirty year old men and thirteen year old girls were not uncommon. That ancient acould also involve more than one person has already been made.
But thats not whats important. Whats important is how we define marraige today? If its between two adults who love each other it should include gay people.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 19, 2007 17:09:14 GMT -5
The history of marriage matters a great deal in this issue.
The Constitution does not define which direction is North nor the number of letters in the alphabet. If a group attempted to define these things contrary to the common almost universal understanding of those things it would be opposed.
If their in not history of a society having approved of homosexual marriages it is clear that the idea was not a concern for the founding fathers otherwise they would have dealt with it.
To assume that they intended for a well established institution to be radically altered contrary to any historic precedent is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 19, 2007 19:56:50 GMT -5
Problem is that appeal to history does not equate to legal grounds. It is much like an appeal to tradition.
In fact, if appeal to history was a legitimate legal argument then women would not only not vote, but they would not be allowed to own land either.
Appeal to history did not work to continue the immorality of slavery in the USA either.
|
|