traditional thought with a contemporary twist
the Definition of Marriage
Published on November 10, 2008 By Joan of Arc In Politics

Let me start by saying I wrote this as I am to appear in a model Legislative hearing in the morning.  I was assigned a proposal and a position.  This ariticle may or may not reflect my opinion about the issue but I was interested in yours.  I tried very hard to avoid value based reasoning.

joa

 

Point 1:  Definition

In order to provide a stable foundation for communication within our society and through the ages regarding fundamental components, it is imperative that societies consider carefully any changes in definition to core societal concepts as change in meaning may change their essence and thereby destroy the uniqueness indicated by their name.  The definition of marriage has always implied heterosexuality. The word ‘marriage’, from the Latin maritare, linguistically has built into it the idea of procreation. Maritare not only means to marry but also to impregnate, which is why commentators would speak of women simultaneously being married and impregnated. Historically in the West, even in non-Christian cultures, the very idea of “gay marriage” would have been an oxymoron. 

This definition has endured and has been used in the most informal settings and in the highest courts in the land.  It is a term that is widely understood and accepted.   It’s implications cover a broad spectrum including: social, moral, legal and fiscal in our society.  Opponents of this bill would try to convince us that to expand the meaning of this word is not to change its essence but merely to include a broader sector of society within its constructs.

With that idea in mind, I ask you to consider the inconsequential word “giraffe”.  This word is not merely a combination of letters but rather communicates the essence of a very unique living creature.   To expand its meaning to include species with shorter necks would diminish to extinction the original intent of its name.  In other words, there would no longer be a term that described the unusual creature we have all come to know as “giraffe”.

When I spoke the word “giraffe”, we all got a similar picture in our mind.  This type of common understanding is important in communication within a society; however, consider the consequential difference when describing an unusual animal as opposed to a fundamental institution within our society such as marriage.  The “expansion” of the meaning of marriage beyond one man and one woman is to destroy the essential uniqueness of the relationship that actually constitutes a marriage.  Just as expanding the meaning of “giraffe” to include species with shorter necks would diminish to extinction its original intent, so the expansion of the word “marriage” to include any other definition than a man and a woman would be the extinction of marriage itself.  Therefore in order to preserve the essence and intent of meaning for the purpose of communication and understanding within our society expressed by the word “marriage “ we must not expand or enhance its meaning in any way. 

Point 2:  History

Marriage, as we know it in our Western civilization today, has a long history with roots in several very different ancient cultures, of which the Roman, Hebrew, and Germanic are the most important. Western marriage has further been shaped by the doctrines and policies of both religious institutions and the impact of the Industrial Revolution.  In ancient Greece marriage was seen as a fundamental social institution and has continued to be viewed as such in every society, regardless of its culture, through modern times

Though the institution of marriage has under gone many changes since it’s origination in ancient societies, the basic premise of marriage has not.  Marriage continues to mean, from both a private and civil  perspective  the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.  The fact that the institution of marriage has survived over 3000 years as we know it today is in itself a powerful testimony to the necessity to its preservation. 

Opponents of this bill would try to convince us that changing trends in social sexual relationships are grounds enough for change however, consider the Romans, a much more sexually permissive society, unconstrained by moral code which tolerated prostitution, concubinage, and had no qualms about homosexual relationships and yet never considered altering the structure of marriage to include other relationships.  Based on historic precedence, we can only conclude that even when society is sexually permissive; it does not constitute reason or .right to challenge the basic institution called marriage.

In 384 BC, Aristotle said, “It is useful, in framing laws, not only to study the past history of one’s own county. In order to understand which constitution is desirable for it now, but also to have a knowledge of the constitutions of other nations and so to learn for what kinds of nation the various kinds of constitution are suited. When these have been studied we shall perhaps be more likely to see with a comprehensive view, which constitution is best, and how each must be ordered, and what laws and customs it must use, if it is to be at its best.”

A study of the institution of marriage historically clearly proclaims the necessity of its preservation in society as we now know it.  Simply put, while nations have risen and fallen, laws, moral codes, and customs have changed dramatically, society throughout history has recognized marriage as a fundamental building block and therefore has preserved its definition.  It would be both arrogant and foolish for us to do otherwise.

 


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 10, 2008

The Torian Empire casts their 157602 Influence votes in favor of abolishing the institution of marriage.   We like to get frisky with everyone and every thing.  And we are darn good at it, if you ask me. 

on Nov 10, 2008

The oldest reference to marriage stems (I believe) from religion, in the Old Testament.

 

And it is interpreted differently between different religions (as to how many times you can get married, other details, etc)

 

Being such that we are supposed to have separation of church and state, the only thing our government should recognize is a civil union. Even between a man and a woman. Different religions can call it what they want. The government only recognizes a union between whatever two legally aged human parties are present as a contractual and financial agreement.

 

I'm Catholic, but I still think it's right not to judge and let others do as they please. If two people really love each other, and they are homosexual, they can have a civil union and the church to which they belong can call it marriage (if it wants to). Same with my relationship with a woman, the government only sees a civil union and my church can call it a marriage.

on Nov 11, 2008

We like to get frisky with everyone and every thing

 

so did the Romans!

joa

The oldest reference to marriage stems (I believe) from religion

the oldest reference to the relationship may come from that text but not the word.  The word is latin in origin and does not carry any religious meaning.  Religious zealots of the this era have tried to muddy it's meaning by adding to it moral undertones but that reflects neither its origin nor intend.

I'm Catholic

perhaps why you read a religious arguement into this

civil union and my church can call it a marriage.

civil union is not marriage----it is civil union, marriage may be a subcatagory under civil union but they are not interchangable.  Your church does not have the right to redefine terms based on their beliefs.  If we all did that, we would speak a common language with words that had different meanings and therefore be incapacitated in our ability to communicate.

The whole point is that  m a r r i a g e actually MEANS something that is not up for interperitation. This is a historic fact.  The creation of civil union to accomodate gay couples who want to live in concentual contractual agreements is a fantasitc idea and I am all for it but it will not be a "marriage".

joa

on Nov 11, 2008

The fact that the institution of marriage has survived over 3000 years as we know it today is in itself a powerful testimony to the necessity to its preservation.

So has spousal abuse. Not everything that is old or established is good. Tradition can be a tool of oppression just as easily as it can be the agent of communal history-making.

Opponents of this bill would try to convince us that changing trends in social sexual relationships are grounds enough for change however, consider the Romans, a much more sexually permissive society, unconstrained by moral code which tolerated prostitution, concubinage, and had no qualms about homosexual relationships and yet never considered altering the structure of marriage to include other relationships.

Actually during the days of Republican Rome homosexuality was heavily stigmatised. Consider the lengths Julius Caesar went to to avoid and counteract the lifelong slur that he obtained a naval fleet from Bithnia through seducing its king.

Military records suggest it was particularly unwelcome in the legions - Gaius Marius notably pardoned a soldier who killed Marius' own relative for making an unwanted advance.

Things are much different today.

It would be both arrogant and foolish for us to do otherwise.

Why haven't we embraced the traditional Chinese model then? It lasted much longer than our own. Or that of the Australian aborigines. As I said before, tradition isn't necessarily wisdom.

on Nov 11, 2008

It is necessary to define some terms here:

1. Civil union/marriage- a partnership including conjugal and nonconjugal relationships produced by state ceremony w/o religious implications creating a legal entity equal in all respects to marriage and holy matrimony in the eyes of the secular legal and judicial systems: progeny, finances, the whole kit and kiboodle. For hetero and gay/lesbian couples.

When taken in the historical/cutural context "marriage" was always probably always performed by a religious figure and tied state/religion into the concepts of sin/legitimacy/guilt, etc. In the more modern era we've gotten away from that and marriages are performed by "Justices of the Peace" and City Officials.

2. Holy Matrimony- 1 with the restrictions imposed by religions.

Time to get a grip and stop worrying about the "Giraffes". If you are a believer, let G-d worry about the "Giraffes".

Let's try live and let live, "Do unto others..." and minding our own business for a change. The religious can have their own category which they can view as "the only right way" and let the rest of the zoo get on with life.

Advocating for the "Giraffes" might be sticking my neck out, but using "Joan of Arc" might get you burned at the stake....lol.

Also, by the logic of "It would be arrogant and foolish of us to change that" we'd still be in the trees, picking lice off each other and dying like flies of simple diseases. Nope.

The logic of "Gimme that Old Timme Relion...it was good enough for mom and dad, grandma and grandpa, etc." is not logic at all. It's fear of progress and change, and shouldn't be confused nor disguised as anything else. It could also be considered to be narcissistic sadism victimizing and demonizing, negating and invalidating a group stigmatized as 'sinful' and taken advantage of financially, etc. by the "good" people.

on Nov 11, 2008

In order to provide a stable foundation for communication within our society and through the ages regarding fundamental components, it is imperative that societies consider carefully any changes in definition to core societal concepts as change in meaning may change their essence and thereby destroy the uniqueness indicated by their name.

This is the foundation of your argument, the assumption by which your "logic" stands or falls. So let's attack it.

This precept exist only to the extent that you believe that long-held traditions are a priori correct. Or that long-held traditions are something that should have more weight than other ideas that don't happen to be long-held traditions.

I don't. I choose not to accept that just because something has been done in the past means that we should continue to do so without overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I believe that we should impose our values on ourselves as a society, and when those values change, we should change what we impose on ourselves.

If we believe in equal protection, then we should have equal protection. We (the United States) didn't value that not-so-long ago, when the "separate-but-equal" doctrine was allowed free reign. We decided, as a nation, that this was unacceptable, that separate is a priori not equal, and that we wanted all people to be equal under the law.

Therefore, so long as the law says anything about marriage, all people living under that law should be judged equally. Changing Constitutions to define this term in such a narrow fashion is the modern-day equivalent of the 3/5ths compromise that allowed slave states to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of getting legislators, but who could not cast even 3/5ths of a vote. Equal protection is a virtue, and we either hold to it always in all cases or we don't.

If you want marriage to be "protected," then stop the government from legislating it. If marriage is a religous construct, then deal with it in terms of religion and keep it there. Don't ask the government to give out licenses for it, don't ask the government to provide said couples tax breaks, or even joint filings, etc.

Because once they do that, they have to do it for everyone, equally. Otherwise, we are not who we say we are.

on Nov 11, 2008

The bisexual empire was Greece, not Rome.  Greek style?

 

Doc, question.  Is wanting to treat a disease narcissistic sadism?

 

While abusing the word logic, consider the logic in, best case scenario, accepting a genetic defect that preempts the propogation of a species as normal.  Although Asia and Africa could certainly use more of it.

on Nov 11, 2008


the oldest reference to the relationship may come from that text but not the word.  The word is latin in origin and does not carry any religious meaning.  Religious zealots of the this era have tried to muddy it's meaning by adding to it moral undertones but that reflects neither its origin nor intend.

 

Good point. But like it or not, Latin wasn't the first language created. The latin term "marriage" was derived to describe something that had happened before latin was even invented. And where did that practice come from? That's the problem. You can't start defining it at the point where latin evolved the word, because arabic, for example, wasn't derived from latin!

civil union is not marriage----it is civil union, marriage may be a subcatagory under civil union but they are not interchangable.  Your church does not have the right to redefine terms based on their beliefs.  If we all did that, we would speak a common language with words that had different meanings and therefore be incapacitated in our ability to communicate.

You are misunderstanding me...you are right, a civil union is NOT a marriage. But, under my suggestion, the government only recognizes things that we now commonly refer to as "marriage" as a civil union (basically the same thing, but with the focus on the legal, contractual, and financial implications). Churches only apply the word marriage.

 

Let me make a crappy analogy. I buy a beer from the store. My buddy believes that the beer is holy and calls it a religious artifact. Fine with me, it's still just a beer to me but he can call it what he wants and treat it like whatever he wants, as long as he isn't infringing on my beer or other people's beers without their consent.

 

And yes, churches DO redefine marriage...if you notice, Catholic churches are not so keen on divorce, and if you have a divorce they will refuse to recognize your second marriage (unless you get it annulled). This is because of their definition of marriage as a once in a lifetime thing. The law recongizes your second marriage, however, and you can call your marriage a marriage without anyone but the Catholic church saying otherwise.

 

The whole point is that  m a r r i a g e actually MEANS something that is not up for interperitation. This is a historic fact.  The creation of civil union to accomodate gay couples who want to live in concentual contractual agreements is a fantasitc idea and I am all for it but it will not be a "marriage".

That's the problem. The definition of marriage (which you have not given me a clear, defined, cut source of both it's origin, precursors, and practice...don't worry, you won't find that! That's the problem!) has been at the wrong end of a game of grab-ass with religion for a long time. Both you and I know this is true. If it weren't so, this wouldn't be an issue.

Just because someone is different doesn't mean you need to alienate them. If I saw a gay couple that wanted to be married, that is fine with me -- I would invite them to my church and share my faith with them. It is their decision to make, and I am not the judge. I can disagree with their decision (I don't), but I can't personally see anything wrong with two people, who are truly in love (and who may not be able to help their emotions, although the choice vs nature debate gets ugly) getting married. That's another argument, however.

 

Debate is fun though, hope you did well in your mock debate.

 

I think your main weakness is that you can't define marriage entirely, and especially not with a simple latin root. Usually, at the start of Lincoln Douglas debate, you begin by offering a few definitions, with sources. Not so hard when you are talking about things like "nuclear deterrence", "national security", etc, but it's not so easy when it involves things like "marriage", "human life", etc.

on Nov 11, 2008

Doc, question. Is wanting to treat a disease narcissistic sadism?



While abusing the word logic, consider the logic in, best case scenario, accepting a genetic defect that preempts the propogation of a species as normal. Although Asia and Africa could certainly use more of it.

What disease?

Also, by the logic of "It would be arrogant and foolish of us to change that" we'd still be in the trees, picking lice off each other and dying like flies of simple diseases. Nope.
It's fear of progress and change, and shouldn't be confused nor disguised as anything else. It could also be considered to be narcissistic sadism victimizing and demonizing, negating and invalidating a group stigmatized as 'sinful' and taken advantage of financially, etc. by the "good" people.

While abusing the word logic, consider the logic in, best case scenario, accepting a genetic defect that preempts the propogation of a species as normal. Although Asia and Africa could certainly use more of it.

Who is abusing the word? By your grammar, I understand you were referring to yourself.

What genetic defect? "Giraffes'" long necks? How else would they reach the tops of trees? I'm being facetious.

Did you mean homosexuality? It's perfectly acceptable to use the word. You don't have to hide behind the hypothetical species in your post.

Homosexuality is not recognized as a genetic "defect" nor as a disease. It also does not seem to prevent the propagation of H. "sapiens" if you look at the current rate of world population expansion.

Although Asia and Africa could certainly use more of it.

This is a good example of narsissitic sadism (= racism, in your usage).

on Nov 11, 2008

You are misunderstanding me...you are right, a civil union is NOT a marriage. But, under my suggestion, the government only recognizes things that we now commonly refer to as "marriage" as a civil union (basically the same thing, but with the focus on the legal, contractual, and financial implications). Churches only apply the word marriage.

 @ FN77:

Churches, like everyone else misuse "marriage". It's etymology, etc. is unimportant: It's popular misusage is. Churches/Temples/Misgads, etc. can only lay claim to the term "Holy Matrimony" since the ceremony is performed by an official of that organization and both people accept that religions rules as the basis for their contractual expectations.

Marriage/Civil Union should be identical, and if the Constitution were followed without prejudice, would be. I don't care about the "traditions" and "origins" of the word. There is no obligation to follow the past like sheep because of the etymology of the word.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can understand how a black person might feel in seeing the flag of the now defunct Confederacy displayed in or part of the state flag where he/she lives, despite the claims that "It's our heritage" or "It's tradition" or "It's history". Clearly, to this person it's hateful/prejudice.

How is it that educated people cannot see that they are essentially doing the same thing to other people because of a part of those lives that does not touch nor affect their own? Because of tradition, history and heritage, religion?

Again I say equal rights for all. Get a grip and a life.

Marriage = Civil Union  if equal rights (and not the religious) and the Constitution are to be the criteria.

on Nov 11, 2008

How is this topic related to "Forum Issues"?  This is a technical support forum, not a political opinion forum.  Moderator, please lock this.

on Nov 11, 2008

The logic of "Gimme that Old Timme Relion...it was good enough for mom and dad, grandma and grandpa, etc." is not logic at all. It's fear of progress and change, and shouldn't be confused nor disguised as anything else. It could also be considered to be narcissistic sadism victimizing and demonizing, negating and invalidating a group stigmatized as 'sinful' and taken advantage of financially, etc. by the "good" people

all I can say JB is that you are way off base

on Nov 11, 2008

Because once they do that, they have to do it for everyone, equally. Otherwise, we are not who we say we are

honestly, i'm not sure why they don't..... but since government seems to need to stick it's nose in everything, I guess we need to duke it out!

joa

 

on Nov 11, 2008

The bisexual empire was Greece, not Rome. Greek style

then why was Sparta mandating men to have heterosexual realtions for procreation (the men prefered the men )

But, under my suggestion, the government only recognizes things that we now commonly refer to as "marriage" as a civil union (basically the same thing, but with the focus on the legal, contractual, and financial implications). Churches only apply the word marriage.

if this is so, how is it that two states that recognize civil unions just shot down marriage bills?

especially not with a simple latin root

it worked for the high schoolers but you've made a good point and I do belive that is the crux of the arguement.  the whole point of my position was to try to take it to any other arena than the religious one.  There must be a discussion that can be had about this issue, since it does effect all of our lives that is not muddled by our different takes on spirituality.  It was interesting for me and since my listeners were christian school students I wanted them to think outside of the box.  I actually posed as a Professor of Ancient History and Linguistics who was openly gay.  I answered their questions as one who differenciated between civil union and marriage as a point of linguistics and favored civil union(which was equal to marriage) for myself and my partner.

on Nov 11, 2008

 

MottiKhan


How is this topic related to "Forum Issues"?  This is a technical support forum, not a political opinion forum.  Moderator, please lock this.

 

Mr M--please forgive my ignorance if i labeled this wrong.  I thought forum topic meant an open topic that didn't fit under anything else.  I am not sure what it means to "lock" it but if I have transgressed, then so be it.

JOA

2 Pages1 2