This is a personal blog. All opinions expressed are my own personal opinions, not those of my employer.
On Marriage
Fri, 23/12/2005 - 21:48 — zhasper
From a comment on Larvatus Prodeo.
My point is, it’s an institution that has constantly evolved and changed over all the years of our western civilisation. These days western girls have inheritance rights. Women don’t defer to their husband’s authority as they used to. Infertility does not invalidate the union. We believe love, and not property transfer or business partnership or political union, is the basis for marriage. In fact, we believe it’s the only basis for marriage. So marriage has shifted mightily. It’s an institution that can, and I’ll dare say will, accommodate the notion of gay marriage (or ‘civil union’), especially as property is now owned by individuals, rather than families (Packers and Murdochs excepted), and so the right of transfer is an individual choice.
Go read the rest of the thread. In amongs much nonsensical rambling from conservatives (seriously - just trying to parse some of their sentences gives me headaches. Every now and then I try to take it a step further and analyse their logic - fortunately, I have aspirin kept on hand for such folly), there are also other good comments that you should be reading as well.
[edit] I'm still reading more of this thread myself (thank you, LP, for your wonderful comments feed).
The contrast between the two sides of the argument really is startling. On the one hand, we have posters such as Naomi and Mark, links to samples of whose work I've already posted. On the other side, we have.. well, names (pseudonyms?) aren't neccessary.
Mark and Naomi in particular are fantastic: their points are logically consistent, well made, and on-topic. Those on the other side... well, one comment describes the idea of marriage being "between a man and a woman to the exclusion of others" as being:
the traditional institution as laid out in our Constitution
I'm astounded. I've not seen a better example of irony in almost a year.
[/edit]
PS. yes, I just put multiple sentences inside a set of parentheses, even but inserted taht set of parentheses into the middle of a sentence. Is that valid? I hope not - all grammar flames need at least one major error
PPS. I've long had a habit of posting pointers here to things worth reading elsewhere. Now that I've got ads on the site - and just possibly might make profit (Ha! I raff and raff and raff!) from traffic... well, I'm concerned that people might think I'm just trying to draw traffic. What do you think?
PPS. I posed that last question to myself and decided it's probably not a problem - I've been very clear that the material wasn't written by me, and I've encouraged you to go and read the source... also, I really do think it's worth reading.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Trackback URL for this post:
http://zhasper.com/trackback/175
Comments
Depressing level of debate
I think you picked the eyes out of the comments there. I find the level of debate depressing. I suppose I should join the debate but at the moment I can't find the energy. So I would make these comments.
The references to Christian and specifically Catholic theology imply that theology or doctrine is fixed. That is not the case and the church's understanding of marriage has evolved over the centuries as much as the understanding of marriage by society generally. The churches try to make out that there is a single fixed truth, but it is not the case.
My hot button is 'civil unions'. Australia is a secular society and marriage in Australia is a civil union. For some it may also be a religious union but that is incidental. It is a matter of choice for the individuals involved. I dislike those with religious affiiliations who cannot bear the thought of gays having marriage because marriage belongs to the religions. They may condcescend to allow us 'civil unions'.
I also dislike those on the other side who attempt to make out that civil unions are somehow morally superior to marriage. Marriages among heterosexuals take many different forms. Admitting gays to marriage will probably mean that the concept of marriage further evolves - and for the better. Civil unions would not be fundamentally different.
It is partly about language. 'A rose by any other name...' That is the essence of the debate in Australia. The definition of marriage may have more of a religious basis in other countries, even to the point of specifying the form of vows. That is not the case in Australia.
I think in the end 'civil unions' will be seen by the heterosexual majority as meaning that same sex unions can't be called marriage and therefore are, in fact, inferior. 'Civil unions' may bring certain legal rights, but they will not bring the image of equal value. I doubt that there is much push in the heterosexual community for civil unions compared to marriage.
I can see it being like having a separate voting law for blacks. Even if it conferred exactly the same rights it would be rightly seen as discriminatory. Even if some whites could and did decide for whatever reason, to be covered by the black voting law, that would not make any difference to the image of being second class. And like all laws, it could be selectively chosen for amendment or abolition without impacting the majority. The vulnerability of the LGBT people to discrimination would remain.
What the marriage act says:
For your interest, this is what the marriage act says about marriages conducted by a celebrant:
Where a marriage is solemnized by or in the presence of an authorized celebrant, not being a minister of religion, it is sufficient
if each of the parties says to the other, in the presence of the
authorized celebrant and the witnesses, the words:
“I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, A.B. (or
C.D.), take thee, C.D. (or A.B.), to be my lawful wedded
wife (or husband)”;
or words to that effect.
That's all you need to say to be married!
I can see why J Ho found it
I can see why J Ho found it neccessary to define marriage as being "between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others" then - that wording, taken on its own, certainly makes it possible for both partners to take the other partner as "my lawful wedded husband".
There was something else I was going to say here, but I can't think what it was... ho hum..
--
There is nothing as despicable as a man who quotes himself. -- Zhasper, 2005
Changing Traditions
The references to Christian and specifically Catholic theology imply that theology or doctrine is fixed. That is not the case
Indeed - as anyone with a rudimentary understanding of church history knows.
Of course, I may be particularly aware of this having grown up in a denomination that's a mere few hundred years old, the schismed from the Anglican church which itself schismed from the Roman Catholic church...
But even without that - take a look at doctrines such as transubstantiation, homoousious, or even the Biblical canon! These are all things that have changed over time, with clearly documented origins and history.
It's not just "official" doctrine that changes though - I was just listening this morning to an interview with the author of The Trouble with Christmas who describes the way our modern Christmas "traditions" arose, and points out that they're mostly only around 150-200 years old. Not too long ago, Christians were leery of Santa Claus and the commercialised aspects of the celebration - now you get Christians dressed as Santa Claus effectively protesting for *more* commercialisation!
---
Lastly, I agree with your comments about other forms of marriage (but I'm sure you know me well enough to expect that :). If three people happen to be in a loving caring nurturing relationship - that just doesn't fit with current marriage law either. Sure, such relationships are incredibly rare, but they do happen...
One of the arguments I've seen for legal recognition of same-sex partnerships is the death-bed scenario: at present (apparently, I've not had direct experiences of this myself), when it's clear a patient is dying, hopsitals will refuse all visitors except immediate family - and same-sex partners are not considered family, so may not be allowed to be with their partner. The same problem could arise in a three-way partnership - one legally recognised partner is allowed to see the dying partner, the other is refused entry.
I think I'll go back to work now instead of babbling about hypotheticals...
Merry Christmas Mal, I've enjoyed reading your posts and talking to you and spending time with you through the year :)
--
There is nothing as despicable as a man who quotes himself. -- Zhasper, 2005
Post new comment