2 ms·

Ahh yes the no historical precedent of gay people existing, forming life long partnerships, and raising children (sometimes their own, sometimes not). That defi

by Spivak 3y ago

Ahh yes the no historical precedent of gay people existing, forming life long partnerships, and raising children (sometimes their own, sometimes not). That definitely hasn't existed as long as there have been people. Also whose definition of marriage? Marriage in Judaism is a matter of contract law, the Ketubah as originally written affords the husband conjugal rights but Judaism doesn't do the whole no contraception / sex is only for procreation thing (although only certain forms of birth control are kosher). And reform Jews typically don't include the conjugal rights at all so that's out. The Satanic Temple's marriage rights have nothing to do with sex at all and are entirely about love and mutual respect. The same is true for most modern Pagan denominations including Druidism and Wicca. Civil marriage in the US is a joining of assets and has nothing to do with love or sex. Buddhism has no concept of marriage at all and defers to the civil institution which again is neither about love or sex. Then we have Native American marriages which can be polyamorous, polygamous, was neither recognized as religious or civil, was not a lifetime bond, wasn't exclusive and could include sex or not. At no point is any church obligated to marry anyone in particular and it's always been the local civil institution of marriage that interracial and homosexual couples want access to and as it's just a legal joining of families and some financial obligations theres nothing two men/women can't do. And hell even in Catholicism you need the rule that marriage is one man / one woman (which Churches are ignoring left and right -- progress!) because the other obligations don't matter to it. It's not sinful to have sex with an infertile woman or a man who had an orchiectomy due to testicular cancer and gay sex is equally open to procreation as that. Unless you want religiously homogeneous societies you have to decouple the secular and the religious institution of marriage because what do ya do when you have immigrants from other cultures and faiths? Tell them to pound sand?

skissane 3y ago
> Ahh yes the no historical precedent of gay people existing, forming life long partnerships, and raising children (sometimes their own, sometimes not). That definitely hasn't existed as long as there have been people. In Socrates' day, Greek culture was accepting of same-sex relationships (at least within certain boundaries, the contours of which varied from city-state to city-state) – but the idea of same-sex marriage never appeared to have occurred to them. Same-sex marriage only makes sense if you view opposite-sex and same-sex relationships as equivalent, interchangeable – historically, many societies have accepted same-sex relationships, but put them in a completely different category from opposite-sex ones. The idea that they are equivalent and interchangeable appears to have been rare in history, prior to the 20th century. > Unless you want religiously homogeneous societies you have to decouple the secular and the religious institution of marriage because what do ya do when you have immigrants from other cultures and faiths? Why do we even need a "secular institution of marriage"? Here in Australia, all state and federal laws have been changed to give unmarried couples (whether opposite-sex or same-sex) identical legal rights to married ones. In fact, we did that before we legalised same-sex marriage – which made same-sex marriage's legalisation in Australia an essentially symbolic measure. I know the US hasn't made that reform – but there doesn't seem to be any good reason for that, only a lack of political will. Once you give unmarried couples identical rights to legally married couples – does the legal institution of marriage still serve any purpose? Wouldn't the most religiously neutral thing be to abolish marriage as a legal category entirely? Any secular legal definition of marriage is going to be closer to some religious definitions than others, and hence can be accused of showing undue favouritism towards those religions which it is closer to. If marriage were abolished as a legal category, people would still be free to get married, but it would be a purely private cultural and/or religious institution, without any public legal significance.
- Spivak 3y ago
  So this is where I completely agree with you. I think we could have and should have done away with secular marriage. And in the 00's this was a common talking point when the gay marriage debate was at its peak but it didn't pan out because gay people actually wanted to get married and be recognized as husbands and wives even if the marriage wasn't in a church, straight people didn't want to have their marriage certificate change to be a civil union or whatever name, and everyone liked that the thing called marriage conferred real legal rights and responsibilities which made it feel more serious. So now there's a civil marriage and a religious one. For all its flaws it does mean that you can be married without the need for any faith at all if that's your thing. But this semi-intentional blurring of the two things has made it so that Christians view expansion of civil marriage as an attack on the church. Which is frustrating and understandable simultaneously.
rayiner 3y ago
> Ahh yes the no historical precedent of gay people existing, forming life long partnerships, and raising children (sometimes their own, sometimes not). There is little to no historical precedent for the community sanctioning those relationships as “marriage.” > Also whose definition of marriage? All the world’s major religions. Christianity and Islam, obviously. But also Hinduism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Hinduism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Hinduism. And Buddhism: https://academic.oup.com/book/28469/chapter/229097470 https://academic.oup.com/book/28469/chapter/229097470. Religions and cultures around the world disagree on many things. But “marriage” being a social structure for having and raising children is an idea that virtually all of them embrace. Prohibitions on interracial marriage, by contrast, exist in virtually no cultures or religions. And you don’t even need to get into religion. Procreative sex is necessary for the survival of the human species. It has biological significance. Race by contrast is a social construct. Saying that interracial marriage is the same thing as same-sex marriage is flippant. > Civil marriage in the US is a joining of assets and has nothing to do with love or sex. Civil marriage recognizes and gives legal effect to something that exists outside of civil law. Why do we have this legal construct for joining assets anyway? For the same reason the law imposes child support obligations or OSHA requires employers to provide restroom facilities. It’s a nod to certain biological realities that underpin human society. Of course, much of western society has adopted a radically different view of marriage. Most in the west think of marriage as being about commitment between people who love and are attracted to each other. Same-sex marriage is a natural consequence of those beliefs. But remember the question before Justice Thomas isn’t whether the government can give legal effect to relationships based on this modern reconceptualization. The question he’s dealing with is whether a document written by Christians in the 1700s requires legislatures to embrace that modern conception of marriage.

by Spivak 3y ago

skissane 3y ago

> Ahh yes the no historical precedent of gay people existing, forming life long partnerships, and raising children (sometimes their own, sometimes not). That definitely hasn't existed as long as there have been people. In Socrates' day, Greek culture was accepting of same-sex relationships (at least within certain boundaries, the contours of which varied from city-state to city-state) – but the idea of same-sex marriage never appeared to have occurred to them. Same-sex marriage only makes sense if you view opposite-sex and same-sex relationships as equivalent, interchangeable – historically, many societies have accepted same-sex relationships, but put them in a completely different category from opposite-sex ones. The idea that they are equivalent and interchangeable appears to have been rare in history, prior to the 20th century. > Unless you want religiously homogeneous societies you have to decouple the secular and the religious institution of marriage because what do ya do when you have immigrants from other cultures and faiths? Why do we even need a "secular institution of marriage"? Here in Australia, all state and federal laws have been changed to give unmarried couples (whether opposite-sex or same-sex) identical legal rights to married ones. In fact, we did that before we legalised same-sex marriage – which made same-sex marriage's legalisation in Australia an essentially symbolic measure. I know the US hasn't made that reform – but there doesn't seem to be any good reason for that, only a lack of political will. Once you give unmarried couples identical rights to legally married couples – does the legal institution of marriage still serve any purpose? Wouldn't the most religiously neutral thing be to abolish marriage as a legal category entirely? Any secular legal definition of marriage is going to be closer to some religious definitions than others, and hence can be accused of showing undue favouritism towards those religions which it is closer to. If marriage were abolished as a legal category, people would still be free to get married, but it would be a purely private cultural and/or religious institution, without any public legal significance.

Spivak 3y ago
So this is where I completely agree with you. I think we could have and should have done away with secular marriage. And in the 00's this was a common talking point when the gay marriage debate was at its peak but it didn't pan out because gay people actually wanted to get married and be recognized as husbands and wives even if the marriage wasn't in a church, straight people didn't want to have their marriage certificate change to be a civil union or whatever name, and everyone liked that the thing called marriage conferred real legal rights and responsibilities which made it feel more serious. So now there's a civil marriage and a religious one. For all its flaws it does mean that you can be married without the need for any faith at all if that's your thing. But this semi-intentional blurring of the two things has made it so that Christians view expansion of civil marriage as an attack on the church. Which is frustrating and understandable simultaneously.

rayiner 3y ago

> Ahh yes the no historical precedent of gay people existing, forming life long partnerships, and raising children (sometimes their own, sometimes not). There is little to no historical precedent for the community sanctioning those relationships as “marriage.” > Also whose definition of marriage? All the world’s major religions. Christianity and Islam, obviously. But also Hinduism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Hinduism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Hinduism. And Buddhism: https://academic.oup.com/book/28469/chapter/229097470 https://academic.oup.com/book/28469/chapter/229097470. Religions and cultures around the world disagree on many things. But “marriage” being a social structure for having and raising children is an idea that virtually all of them embrace. Prohibitions on interracial marriage, by contrast, exist in virtually no cultures or religions. And you don’t even need to get into religion. Procreative sex is necessary for the survival of the human species. It has biological significance. Race by contrast is a social construct. Saying that interracial marriage is the same thing as same-sex marriage is flippant. > Civil marriage in the US is a joining of assets and has nothing to do with love or sex. Civil marriage recognizes and gives legal effect to something that exists outside of civil law. Why do we have this legal construct for joining assets anyway? For the same reason the law imposes child support obligations or OSHA requires employers to provide restroom facilities. It’s a nod to certain biological realities that underpin human society. Of course, much of western society has adopted a radically different view of marriage. Most in the west think of marriage as being about commitment between people who love and are attracted to each other. Same-sex marriage is a natural consequence of those beliefs. But remember the question before Justice Thomas isn’t whether the government can give legal effect to relationships based on this modern reconceptualization. The question he’s dealing with is whether a document written by Christians in the 1700s requires legislatures to embrace that modern conception of marriage.