Gay Marriage

No, they didn't. But they did invent catering.

I thought they invented the pleat...



(Joke! Joke! Some of my best friends are...



...pleats!)

For a little historical perspective, in western culture, marriage became a social institution for the purpose of property management. In so many places, at so many times, the "sacrament" of marriage was unknown to, or meaningless to the peasant on the land, for whom movable property was easily carried on one's back, and real estate was something the master or mistress of the manor disposed of. Marriage was important to those who wished to secure property--at first principally real estate--acquiring it through marriage, assuring that it stayed "in the family," concluding the bargains whereby aristocratic families or prosperous burghers hoped to attain advantage and expanded influence. There is a wealth of anectdotal evidence, and a not inconsiderable amount of statistical evidence (from the last few centuries) that a great many people lived together and reproduced without benefit of clergy, and with no social repercussions. Those who had precious little or no real estate had little to worry about in comparison to those who had or wanted control of estates or business enterprises. In many ancient, pre-christian societies, a man took the greatest interest in the "sister's-son," because he could not be sure that the son of his bedmate was his own son, and it would have been bad form to inquire into the matter. With a nephew, he could at least be certain they had common ancestors.

I think this issue will prove to be one of the most bitterly fought of rear-guard actions by reactionary religious fanatics.

They also invent circumcision. Ouch again. Actually, that means since they invented marriage as a religious right and that is the basis to deny marriage to gays, then those on our boards who are not circumcized will have to have their dick cut off.

[irony]Thank God i'm an atheist[/irony]

Foreskin and seven years ago...

Round here, to prove you're married, you have to produce the government (civil) document, not the church document. Your spousal benefits are based on the civil union, not the religious ceremony.

There are spousal benefits legislated for common-law couples, heterosexual as well as homosexual. It's the law. Had been for years before homosexual marriages became legal here.

Seal Poel said:



This still says it all to me. Thanks SP.

My marriage was not a church one, and was certainly a legal one. That was in California in 1979.

To throw in a herring here, I know that in Italy people often get married twice, once by the church and once rather quickly by the state. Thus if you go to the Capitoline Hill on a Sunday morning, you'll be apt to see couples celebrating their state wedding.

Civil union may describe my and other people's marriages, but it seems a new coinage, to me, to separate some legal contract from the - ahem - sacred church one that has, I gather, in the US at keast, worked as a religious rite union and a state one at the same time.

I don't give a hoot myself if churches will include homosexual couples in their sacred/state combo ceremonies; by not giving a hoot, I mean that I suppose it is each church's right to delineate for whom they will do ceremonies. Whether more churches should open up - is something I sympathize with but really none of my own business or interest. Re state marriage, I am in agreement that homosexual unions are as legitimate as any other coupling under the contract described.

This is the confusion, ossobuco. The idea that perhaps one should find another name for "marriage" in civil legal terms has been offered. This might work. Marriage could be reserved for religious ceremonies.

I think, however, that "marriage" could work in a civil legal sense. Perhaps another term would work in the churches: a word that means an indissoluble union, perhaps, although heaven knows how that would be enforced. There seems to be a feeling that religious marriage is more valuable and more culturally sustaining than a civil jointure. But with so many religious unions coming apart and not being unions for life, perhaps a civil marriage may be the bottom line and the base unit of society, be it homo or hetero sexual in nature.

Well, a civil ceremony is already called marriage, and many of us spent a lot of time therein; I suppose I could see some added word for sacred marriage, but there is at least one phrase already, "holy matrimony". Is matrimony used other than in churches, she asks wonderingly?

It could be a bit awkward. We got "holy matrimonied" last week.

It's interesting, of course, to tease apart this concept (and the particular usage here) of 'sacred'.

The concept is set in opposition to 'profane'. So we can see the old cultural structures of taboo underlying. Such deep notions of sacred and taboo/profane tend to represent the cultural values and ideas which are the least reflected upon in a community. Questioning them is the sort of thing you get sauteed at the stake for. In terms of cultural inertia, this stuff is pretty damned difficult to change. That's why, even with the hopeful promise of universal education, we are even having such a conversation as this one.

But we have found a mechanism at least somewhat emollient in this regard - institutions and constitutions which recognize the inherent oppressiveness of any singular vision re the sacred and profane, and which cordone it off from positions of political power where it can (will) mandate for all in the community.

The claim that marriage is sacred is really just an example of this push towards exclusive dominance of a singular and exclusionary vision.

It's those who indulge in mixed semantics that are baiting the USSC to define equal rights under the law once again. Seems to me someone took advantage of this in order to win an election.

I picked sacred as an adjective to modify marriage as distinct from civil both quickly and slightly tongue in cheek. I didn't want to use church, or temple; suppose I should have said religious rite marriage... (heh).

Actually, with blatham's response I think that turned out to be a pretty useful choice. Might help us to define civil (or secular, if you please), as well...

Is it likewise a negative that gay rights groups are likewise organized and fighting for their position? Or is it only a negative when people support positions with which you disagree? :wink:

I refer to mine as "plaintiff".

ehBeth - Your quote didn't stirke me as something Einstein would have said (or written). I checked, and it appears your attribution is incorrect. The quote comes from John Dryden.

Lot's of people on the Internet seem to have this one wrong. (So what's new, right?)

Obviously, Worldofquotescom make a mistake, while cpoying this quote from another site, perhaps gigaquote: there, and perhaps on other qotation sites, this Einstein quote is next to a quote by Dryden:
example




May be, however, just one site on the internet has got it correctly.
Then you are completely right.

What do you suggest: should I notify the publisher from the German Einstein Society to delete this from the publications?

And do you think, I should write to the publishers of Einstein's works to correct this?