|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I think you're missing that I was responding in the broader context that Rrhain described (see Message 729 where he describes some rights conveyed by marriage regarding illness, death, families, etc.), while you seem at this point mainly focused on the marriage event itself and are assuming I disagree with you. I don't. And I suggest that even the questions you raise above is a matter of history rather than guessing. Matters of inheritance and family arise with or without state involvement. Tax law does not, but I suspect you won't argue that tax law is not primary non-religious. If your argument is that these laws evolved first with the church heavily involved with the state, then the best way to show that would be to cite some history. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The earliest origins of marriage are surely lost in the past and equally surely bedevilled with ambiguities and uncertainties. What is the minimum that counts as a state? What is the minimum that counts as marriage?
But we can say that the Christian church did not originate marriage (and neither did Judaism) and that the Christian church took it over from the civil authorities - in some places. Even if you could somehow show that marriage originated as a religious rite (an undoubtedly pagan rite, at that) it would really have very little relevance to the current situation nor would it give Christianity any claim to control marriage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Old Testament description of early marriages suggests that there was no ceremony, just the taking of the chosen wife into the tent/dwelling of the man, which may have been validated by witnesses to the event. This seems to be how Isaac married Rebekah. Ceremonies no doubt grew up around it, and by the time of Jesus it involved a protracted period of engagement that was already called marriage, an unconsummated betrothal which was the state of Joseph and Mary when the angel announced that she was to bear the Messiah.
The parable of the five wise and five foolish virgins suggests a ritual that involved the groom-to-be's going away for a long time, to return unexpectedly for his bride. This is just a sketch of how marriage seems to have evolved in Israel. There are no doubt other customs that developed in other lands, but the bottom line was always a man and a woman who decided to make their lives together. But there's something wrong with any idea that Christians think we "control" marriage. The Christian objection to the SCOTUS ruling has nothing to do with the history of marriage as such, but to its redefinition from the ancient understanding that it unites a man and a woman, which corresponds to God's ordinance as described in the Bible. You all treat it as no big deal but a Bible believer is pushed into a corner by this ruling despite some "Christian" views to the contrary. Which is fine with you all and probably something we should regard as just another chunk of culture flattened under the wheels of the pagan juggernaut, disconcerting to us but in accord with Biblical prophecy, which we have to keep reminding ourselves. It would have been nice if the SCOTUS had made an effort to protect Christians from this situation while extending marriage benefits to gays, but although it seems that should have been possible it also seems they didn't care to protect us. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Yes, it is likely that early marriage was more like a contractual arrangement - without a written contract, of course. Whether that is the earliest form, we can't know. Written documents are just too recent.
quote: Except that you "Christians" do think that your idea of marriage is the only correct one. Which is silly.
quote: Which assumes that "Christian" ideas of marriage should take precedence over the Constitution on what is, after all a civil matter.
quote: Only because they take a view that their religious beliefs should control marriage. If they accepted that it is just a civil matter where their religion has no involvement they would have no problem.
quote: By which you mean that it would be "nice" if SCOTUS sabotaged their own ruling in the name of "Christian" tyranny. Yuck. Edited by PaulK, : Damn auto"correct". Can't handle apostrophes. Edited by PaulK, : some correction after a hasty misreading
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi NoNukes,
I didn't originally respond to this older message, but your most recent message to me indicates some confusion about what I've said, so maybe it will clarify things if I respond to this message now.
NoNukes writes: Marriage was originally a civil institution that was co-opted by the Catholic Church during the later part of the medieval period. Agreed. At some point we may get into the history of marriage in non-western contexts, but the context has been western style marriage, so sure, I agree. In this case you're using "civil" to mean private and not involving church or state.
I don't think any of that counters your general point that marriage is intertwined with religion, but I do not agree that absent that intertwining, that it does not make sense for the state to consider or care about marriage status because that status is an indicator of the relationship between two people, and that relationship reasonably matters in many instances. Maybe not tax bills (although I think I could make a case it does make sense to tax marital partners as a unit), but certainly in matters such as inheritance and making medical decisions. This makes it sound like you think I believe government should not concern itself with marriage status. I don't. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: And I suggest that even the questions you raise above is a matter of history rather than guessing. Matters of inheritance and family arise with or without state involvement. Tax law does not, but I suspect you won't argue that tax law is not primary non-religious. If your argument is that these laws evolved first with the church heavily involved with the state, then the best way to show that would be to cite some history. You must be thinking I'm saying something more than I am. I don't need to cite history for something everyone already knows: separation of church and state is a historically recent development. When church and state were inextricably intertwined, matters or disputes involving marriage were handled by a church/state authority. Today that authority is much less entangled with the church, but the conflicting religious and non-religious roots of marriage will continue to confound and vex for a long, long time. I agree with PaulK in Message 731 that marriage should be "the province of a secular government," but the key word here is *should*. The fact of the matter is that it is not. The secular side has won the legal battle for now, but this isn't the end of the story. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
and by the time of Jesus it involved a protracted period of engagement that was already called marriage, an unconsummated betrothal which was the state of Joseph and Mary when the angel announced that she was to bear the Messiah. Evidence please.
but the bottom line was always a man and a woman who decided to make their lives together.
Bullshit. Rarely did they have any choice, especially the woman.
The Christian objection to the SCOTUS ruling has nothing to do with the history of marriage as such, but to its redefinition from the ancient understanding that it unites a man and a woman,
Homosexual unions are known and accepted as normal throughout eastern and western history. Couple resources.History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia FactRetriever | Interesting Facts for the Curious Mind It would have been nice if the SCOTUS had made an effort to protect Christians from this situation while extending marriage benefits to gays
Protect christians from what?Six reasons why the Bible is not against gays Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
PaulK writes: Even if you could somehow show that marriage originated as a religious rite (an undoubtedly pagan rite, at that) it would really have very little relevance to the current situation nor would it give Christianity any claim to control marriage. I agree. If I were to debate the issue, that is the position I would take. But I'm making a different point. The other side has evidence and arguments, too, and they're not going away. Marriage's long history as a religious institution is an undeniable fact, and that the origin traces back only to the Middle Ages instead of back into the mists time makes little difference to supporters of religious marriage, just as the recent origin of Mormonism makes little difference to Mormons. We can pat ourselves on the back that we've won this round, but there are an infinite number of rounds. History supports this view. We won on abortion, so the other side found another way, and that's why, for example, there are 23 fewer abortion clinics in Texas now than three years ago, and why Planned Parenthood's funding is being challenged. Going further back, we won on slavery, so the other side found another way, and there were segregation and Jim Crow laws and all that followed with blacks still struggling for equal rights in this country. So what happens next for marriage? Who knows. Speculating generally, I think the current controversy will quickly fade from the limelight. Gay marriage is already the new normal. Conservatives in Congress are already planning legislation granting additional religious rights in secular contexts (there are already some religious rights in secular contexts, e.g., the federal law that employers have to "reasonably accommodate" an employees religion), and these efforts will continue. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Punctuation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
The Christian objection to the SCOTUS ruling has nothing to do with the history of marriage as such, but to its redefinition from the ancient understanding that it unites a man and a woman,... You might want to browse through the Wikipedia article on the history of same-sex unions. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You must be thinking I'm saying something more than I am. I don't need to cite history for something everyone already knows: separation of church and state is a historically recent development. When church and state were inextricably intertwined, matters or disputes involving marriage were handled by a church/state authority. I know what you are saying, and I am suggesting that it is wrong. Marriage predates anything remotely recognizable as the church, and certainly anything remotely recognizable as the Christian church. As PaulK suggests, if any religious entity did exist at the time it was nothing like Christianity. Yes we have come through a period of intertwined church and state, but marriage predates all of that. The real source of confusion is that the state and church definitions of marriage were largely compatible for so long. And that is largely because both religion and marriage are human creations and also reflects churches having some say in matters. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: I know what you are saying,... No, I don't think you do.
...and I am suggesting that it is wrong. Marriage predates anything remotely recognizable as the church, and certainly anything remotely recognizable as the Christian church. As PaulK suggests, if any religious entity did exist at the time it was nothing like Christianity. The reason I don't think you you know what I'm saying is because first you say I'm wrong, and then you make what you apparently intend as corrective statements, but I agree with them. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: It would have been nice if the SCOTUS had made an effort to protect Christians from this situation while extending marriage benefits to gays, but although it seems that should have been possible it also seems they didn't care to protect us. Christians are protected and to say otherwise is simply a lie. However since "Biblical Christianity" is built on the base of dishonesty and fantasy over reality or truth that should be expected. No Christian in the US is forced to marry someone of the same sex or even approve of a same sex marriage any more than a Roman Catholic is forced to marry a divorced person or even approve of marriage of divorced people (although there is hope that last will change). A License Clerk though is required to issue licenses. A Roman Catholic license clerk may not approve of divorced people getting married but still must issue the license. But the real issue is that Biblical Christians love to whine and claim they are persecuted instead of acknowledging that the reality is that they are the persecutors. Edited by jar, : appalin spallinAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It would have been nice if the SCOTUS had made an effort to protect Christians from this situation while extending marriage benefits to gays ... Nice of you. But it doesn't work like that. You can't (or, let's be exact, the Supreme Court can't) "extend marriage benefits to gays" without actually letting them get married. I think you just have to bite it. The law now says that gay couples can get married. You are absolutely free to say that they are not married in the eyes of God, that God disapproves of the sex stuff they do, and that they're a bunch of perverts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Percy writes: No, I don't think you do. It is certainly possible that I missed your meaning. What did you mean by the following?
If we trace marriage back to medieval times, originally all marriage was religious marriage. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm sure the court could have found a way to protect Christians from losing jobs and businesses on account of the stand we must take for Biblical marriage, but they chose not to. This is in line with prophecy so of course we'll live with it, but this is a clear rejection of the true religion, the religion that built the west, and it's going to bring more of God's judgment down on the nation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024