Author Topic: Prop. 8 Overturned in california  (Read 9443 times)

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: Prop. 8 Overturned in california
« Reply #120 on: 08-08-2010, 05:08:30 »
Actually no, it hasn't Mega.  The religious aspect was indeed injected by the Catholic church at a late date.  Sorry, but that's just incorrect history to say that it was always a religious thing.  Even into the 1800s, most people married via common law with no religious ceremony at all.

Offline FlyGuy45

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
Re: Prop. 8 Overturned in california
« Reply #121 on: 08-08-2010, 05:08:26 »
Actually no, it hasn't Mega.  The religious aspect was indeed injected by the Catholic church at a late date.  Sorry, but that's just incorrect history to say that it was always a religious thing.  Even into the 1800s, most people married via common law with no religious ceremony at all.

Correct, I remember this being mentioned in A World Lit Only By Fire.

Offline [WDW]Megaraptor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1.081
    • View Profile
Re: Prop. 8 Overturned in california
« Reply #122 on: 08-08-2010, 08:08:33 »
Actually no, it hasn't Mega.  The religious aspect was indeed injected by the Catholic church at a late date.  Sorry, but that's just incorrect history to say that it was always a religious thing.  Even into the 1800s, most people married via common law with no religious ceremony at all.

The religious aspect of marriage existed in Judaism long before Christianity even existed.

The Catholic church may have codified it as a sacrament, but they were merely codifying what already existed in the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: Prop. 8 Overturned in california
« Reply #123 on: 08-08-2010, 08:08:34 »
So you're saying that a few tens of thousands of Jews living 3000 years ago who MIGHT (probably didn't) codify a practice that was used throughout the ancient world as a common law practice?  So if I can gather up 10,000 people and make them all believe that the act of making a turkey and cheese sandwich is a sacred act, it can be made so that gay's can't make a turkey and cheese sandwich?  Sweet.

Offline siben

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.261
    • View Profile
Re: Prop. 8 Overturned in california
« Reply #124 on: 08-08-2010, 10:08:58 »
Correct VM, in Belgium i know somebody who studies history at uni and she is making her thesis on mariage and divorses during the middle ages and she said that like upto 300 years ago when a man asked you if you wanted to be his wife, and you said yes you where already maried. No priest or anything needed, just saying you where maried was enough to make it official.

Offline [WDW]Megaraptor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1.081
    • View Profile
Re: Prop. 8 Overturned in california
« Reply #125 on: 08-08-2010, 15:08:41 »
So you're saying that a few tens of thousands of Jews living 3000 years ago who MIGHT (probably didn't) codify a practice that was used throughout the ancient world as a common law practice?

Early Judaism:

Genesis 2:23-25

Quote
" 23 The man said,
       "This is now bone of my bones
       and flesh of my flesh;
       she shall be called 'woman,'
       for she was taken out of man."

 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Jewish religious law has all sorts of regulations about marriage: link

And early Christianity:

Hebrews 13:4

Quote
Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

Augustine of Hippo, Of the Good of Marriage

Quote
Forasmuch as each man is a part of the human race, and human nature is something social, and has for a great and natural good, the power also of friendship; on this account God willed to create all men out of one, in order that they might be held in their society not only by likeness of kind, but also by bond of kindred. Therefore the first natural bond of human society is man and wife. Nor did God create these each by himself, and join them together as alien by birth: but He created the one out of the other, setting a sign also of the power of the union in the side, whence she was drawn, was formed.  For they are joined one to another side by side, who walk together, and look together whither they walk.

...

Therefore the good of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the Sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves her husband, even when she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children: and, whereas this is the alone cause, wherefore marriage takes place, not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes place, follows not, is the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband or wife.

And in more recent Judaism

Just gonna quote wiki on this one:

Quote
In Jewish law, marriage consists of two separate acts, called erusin (or kiddushin, meaning sanctification), which is the betrothal ceremony, and nissu'in, the actual ceremony for the marriage. Erusin changes the couple's interpersonal status, while nissu'in brings about the legal consequences of the change of status. In Talmudic  times, these two ceremonies usually took place about a year apart. The bride lived with her parents until the actual marriage ceremony (nissuin), which would take place in a room or tent that the groom had set up for her. Since the Middle Ages, the two ceremonies took place as a combined ceremony, and the marriage ceremony started to be performed publicly.

In fact in Israel today civil marriage doesn't even exist, only religious marriages.

And just to further beat a dead horse, let's look at some other ancient religions:

Roman Religion

From Wiki again:

Quote
Domitius (or Domidius), in Roman mythology, was a god of marriage, specifically, "The god which helps the groom bring the bride into the marriage house." who kept wives in the households of their husbands. The name is derived from the Latin word for "home".

http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php

Quote
The bride was dressed in a long white robe, with a bridal veil, and shoes of a bright yellow color. She was escorted in the evening to her future husband's home by three boys, one of whom carried a torch, the other two supporting her by the arm. They were accompanied by friends of both parties. The groom received the bride at the door, which she entered with distaff and spindle in hand. The keys of the house were then delivered to her. The day ended with a feast given by the husband, after which the bride was conducted to the bridal couch, in the atrium, which was adorned with flowers. On the following day another feast was given by the husband, and the wife performed certain religious rites.

Ancient Greece

Quote
In Greek mythology, Hymenaios (also Hymenaeus, Hymenaues, or Hymen; Ancient Greek: Ὑμέναιος) was a god of marriage ceremonies, inspiring feasts and song. A hymenaios  is also a genre of Greek lyric poetry sung during the procession of the bride to the groom's house in which the god is addressed, in contrast to the Epithalamium, which was sung at the nuptial threshold.

...

Hymenaios was supposed to attend every wedding. If he didn't, then the marriage would supposedly prove disastrous, so the Greeks would run about calling his name aloud. He presided over many of the weddings in Greek mythology, for all the deities and their children.

Hymenaios was celebrated in the ancient marriage song of unknown origin Hymen o Hymenae, Hymen delivered by G. Valerius Catullus. Both the term hymn and hymen are derived from this celebration.[1][2]

Ancient Egypt:

http://www.kingtutshop.com/freeinfo/Marrage-in-Ancient-Egypt.htm

Quote
The ancient Egyptians held marriage as a sacred bond. The family was broken down into roles that each would play in order for things to run smoothly.

I think it's more accurate to say that marriage was religious first, and civil marriage came later.

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: Prop. 8 Overturned in california
« Reply #126 on: 08-08-2010, 18:08:08 »
You really don't understand this do you?

Yes, there were religious texts that mentioned marriage.  Religious texts mentioned quite a lot.  And yes, the elite in society did indeed engage in religious marriage ceremonies.  However, the problem comes when you look at the VAST majority of humanity, IE, the other 99%, you see that they simply didn't do these things.  They didn't have the MONEY to put on lavish ceremony, or to hire priests, or etc.  They could barely support THEMSELVES.  Even by the 1800s, 50% or so of the population still did not do ceremonies as they could not afford it.  It was only in recent times of the 1900s that religious marriage transfixed to all corners of society due to vast increases in wealth, the poor of today have access to FAR, FAR more goods, food, and items than even some of the rich did 200 years ago.

Also, you forget to note that it was also against religious AND civil marriage law to marry one of a different race.  This was not changed until the mid 1900s in america.  How do you qualify that?  If you say that gay marriage should be banned due to 'long standing tradition', than that should apply to all marriage law, including not being allowed to marry a black to a white.  If you say that 'Well, that's ok because that was about racism, and blacks and whites have no control over their colour', well then how is anti-gay marriage not simply homophobia, and gays/bis/lez don't have any more control over it than blacks, whites, asians, etc have over their skin colour.

In the end, you are trying to place a MORAL argument (Gays shouldn't marry) on a LEGAL argument (People who are gay should not, by law, be allowed to marry).  That simply doesn't work.  We do not live in a theocracy, no matter how much some people seem to like the idea.  Religion is not a state sanctioned practice.  What if I have a religion that believes that gay marriage should be allowed?  How is that religion any less correct than your religion, IN the eyes of the constitution?

Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Therefore, that would be interfering with my FREE EXERCISE of my religion, AS WELL as the respecting the establishment of a law that originates from a religion.

Offline Cory the Otter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.815
  • Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home for breakfast.
    • View Profile
    • FA Profile
Re: Prop. 8 Overturned in california
« Reply #127 on: 08-08-2010, 18:08:58 »
if each man was born with equal civil rights as other men, then it is hypocritical to deny that man's rights because of a moral objection.

Offline [WDW]Megaraptor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1.081
    • View Profile
Re: Prop. 8 Overturned in california
« Reply #128 on: 08-08-2010, 19:08:21 »
Yes, there were religious texts that mentioned marriage.  Religious texts mentioned quite a lot.  And yes, the elite in society did indeed engage in religious marriage ceremonies.  However, the problem comes when you look at the VAST majority of humanity, IE, the other 99%, you see that they simply didn't do these things.  They didn't have the MONEY to put on lavish ceremony, or to hire priests, or etc.  They could barely support THEMSELVES.  Even by the 1800s, 50% or so of the population still did not do ceremonies as they could not afford it.  It was only in recent times of the 1900s that religious marriage transfixed to all corners of society due to vast increases in wealth, the poor of today have access to FAR, FAR more goods, food, and items than even some of the rich did 200 years ago.

I'm not sure what you mean by "religious marriage."

My point is that marriage is, and has always been, religious.

The presence or lack of a ceremony doesn't change the religious significance of marriage for people in the past who got married.

"Civil Marriage" in the sense of a government sanctioned contract between individuals with no religious significance to the parties, is a relatively recent invention.

Also, you forget to note that it was also against religious AND civil marriage law to marry one of a different race.

In America it was, but it wasn't that way everywhere. Jews for example were forbidden from marrying someone of a different religion, but if someone from another race converted to Judaism they could marry them.

In the end, you are trying to place a MORAL argument (Gays shouldn't marry) on a LEGAL argument (People who are gay should not, by law, be allowed to marry).  That simply doesn't work.  

All law is based on morality.

if each man was born with equal civil rights as other men, then it is hypocritical to deny that man's rights because of a moral objection.

You aren't born with civil rights. You are thinking of natural rights.

But I deny the existence of natural rights, simply because I see no reason to believe in them. But that's another debate.
« Last Edit: 08-08-2010, 20:08:29 by [WDW]Megaraptor »

Offline Kelmola

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.861
    • View Profile
Re: Prop. 8 Overturned in california
« Reply #129 on: 08-08-2010, 20:08:34 »
All law is based on morality.
You are referring to the "natural" viewpoint of law. "Utilitarian" viewpoint is that law is what law is - a set of commands that enforce the will of the holder of legislative power, who also have in their power to try to change old, harmful attitudes.

But I deny the existence of natural rights, simply because I see no reason to believe in them. But that's another debate.
You reject three thousand years of philosophy and the cornerstone of democracy? Best of luck.