The marriage "Saviours"

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

No, MMMike. Why the hell should Mrs. Rev and I suddenly have a civil union instead of a marriage? Just to make make some religious bigots happy? It's not their institution, it's everybody's institution.

Either gays and lesbians are equal to us or we are practicing institutionalized homophobia. I'll have no part of that. Either people married in civil ceremonies are equal to those married in a church, or we are discriminating on the basis of religious belief. I'll have no part of that either.

Married is married and who marries who is none of anybody else's business.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

No, MMMike. Why the hell should Mrs. Rev and I suddenly have a civil union instead of a marriage? Just to make make some religious bigots happy? It's not their institution, it's everybody's institution.

Either gays and lesbians are equal to us or we are practicing institutionalized homophobia. I'll have no part of that. Either people married in civil ceremonies are equal to those married in a church, or we are discriminating on the basis of religious belief. I'll have no part of that either.

Married is married and who marries who is none of anybody else's business.

Civil union, marriage, why the hell would you care what the word used is? You get upset if someone suggests changing the word used to describe your union? That is exactly what SSM opponents are complaining about! You're being completely inconsistent here.

What Canucklehead suggested, and what I think makes a lot of sense, is exactly equal treatment under the law. The same term for everybody and their dog who wants to get married - civil union. Take the loaded term marriage away from the politicians. It is obvious even from your comments that this is a very emotionally charged term, one that should not be changed by writ of law.

 

[MMMike]

Either people married in civil ceremonies are equal to those married in a church, or we are discriminating on the basis of religious belief.

They would be exactly equal under the law!! That is the whole point!!

 

[Reverend Blair]

They would be exactly equal under the law!! That is the whole point!!

No, the whole point is that you are trying to take the right to marry (under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) away from people based on their sexual orientation.

Civil union, marriage, why the hell would you care what the word used is? You get upset if someone suggests changing the word used to describe your union? That is exactly what SSM opponents are complaining about! You're being completely inconsistent here.

No, I'm being completely consistent. Anybody who wants to marry can marry who they want to. Churches are irrelevant outside of their own tiny walls.

What Canucklehead suggested, and what I think makes a lot of sense, is exactly equal treatment under the law.

That's marriage. Everybody being able to use exactly the same term, no matter where, how, or to who they got married.

Take the loaded term marriage away from the politicians.

And give it to who, the church leaders? Why, because they wrongfully claim that it's their term? No. Simply not good enough. It isn't their term. They have no historic claim to it. They have no moral claim to it. They have no societal claim to it.

You are trying to make religious bigotry into law in an attempt to hide your distaste for gay sex. That is simply untenable in our society.

 

[Canucklehead]

Rev,

On the point of the original usage of the term marriage, we'll have to agree to disagree as I believe it was religious in origin, and since it's unlikely either of us could definitively prove or disprove it, it's best to let the point die peacefully.

I do agree with a lot of what you have said, if only the sentiment behind it. On the bright side and regardless of our back n forth here, we do agree that both heterosexual and homosexual unions/marriage should be unequivocally equal, which ultimately is more important than the details.

 

[peapod]

The trouble with your what you say mike is this. How about saying same sex marriage, I know what consertives are trying to do with the SSM tag. Also stop using same sex marriage in the same sentence as pologmy and pedophilia. You do understand that a homosexual is not a pedophila don't you?? I know what the conseratives are doing with that to.

 

[Reverend Blair]

On the point of the original usage of the term marriage, we'll have to agree to disagree as I believe it was religious in origin,

If it was ever religious in origin, it was a religion that predated any of the ones that so against it being used by gays now. Unless they are going to revert to worshipping ancient Sumerian, Egyptian, or Greek gods, then they still have no more of a claim to it than the rest of society.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Rev,

On the point of the original usage of the term marriage, we'll have to agree to disagree as I believe it was religious in origin, and since it's unlikely either of us could definitively prove or disprove it, it's best to let the point die peacefully.

I may not be the Rev, but I can prove it...

New Advent: The Catholic Encyclopedia

The act, formality, or ceremony by which the marriage union is created, has differed widely at different times and among different peoples. One of the earliest and most frequent customs associated with the entrance into marriage was the capture of the woman by her intended husband, usually from another tribe than that to which he himself belonged. Among most primitive peoples this act seems to have been regarded rather as a means of getting a wife, than as the formation of the marriage union itself. The latter subsequent to the capture, and was generally devoid of any formality whatever, beyond mere cohabitation. But the symbolic seizure of wives continued in many places long after the reality had ceased. It still exits among some of the lower races, and until quite recently was not unknown in some parts of Eastern Europe.

Lower races indeed...f**king bigots...

After the practice has become simulated instead of actual, it was frequently looked upon as either the whole of the marriage ceremony or an essential accompaniment of the marriage. Symbolic capture has largely given way to wife purchase, which seems to prevail among most uncivilized peoples today. It has assumed various forms. Sometimes the man desiring a wife gave one of his kinswomen in exchange; sometimes he served for a period his intended bride's father, which was a frequent custom among the ancient Hebrews; but most often the bride was paid for in money or some form of property. Like capture, purchase became after a time among many peoples a symbol to signify the taking of a wife and the formation of the marriage union. Sometimes, however, it was merely an accompanying ceremony. Various other ceremonial forms have accompanied or constituted the entrance upon the marriage relation, the most common of which was some kind of feast; yet among many uncivilized peoples marriage has taken place, and still takes place, without any formal ceremony whatever.

Anyway, my point being, that even the Catholic church recognizes that marriage was not religious in origin...

 

[Canucklehead]

I appreciate your research Vanni, I came across many articles trying to get to the bottom of it. I know it is a dervitive of the word maritus but nothing on the date it came to be, with the following exception:

'MARRIAGE' entered the English language in the year 1300 'to give in marriage'. This came from old French 'Marier' 'wed' from Maritus 'man or husband'. Maritus has its source in a particle that meant 'provide with a bride or young women',from Indo-European *Mer-or *Mar.

This from another talkboard and while it sounds plausible, there is no way to verify the date so far ( I am neither a linguist or historian ). If this above quote is true, was the word used originally within the church or not?

 

[Vanni Fucci]

This from another talkboard and while it sounds plausible, there is no way to verify the date so far ( I am neither a linguist or historian ). If this above quote is true, was the word used originally within the church or not?

I was under the impression that we were quibbling about the convention more so than the word...pardon me for being obtuse...

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

We are talking about the convention. If they want to patent the word we won't be able to use marry or any of it's derivatives to describe anything other than a church wedding.

 

[Canucklehead]

I was under the impression that we were quibbling about the convention more so than the word...pardon me for being obtuse...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: No Worries!

In a nutshell: I say the word marriage is religious and should be removed from legislation, being replaced by union, thus allowing churches to handle 'marriage' which would be like an add-on to the state union. Rev has been saying that marriage is not religious but thus far, after rereading the thread, has yet to uncouple ('scuse the pun ) marriage the word with marriage the ceremony. He makes perfectly valid points but I'm not sure were talking about the same thing. :idea: 8O :lol: :lol:

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

We have two official languages, and who knows how many immigrant languages. There are about a zillion dialects of native languages. All have a word that means marriage. Some of the cultures and their related religions have no taboo against same sex marriages.

If you change the word in any of those languages, you are attempting to change the concept. That necessarily leads to at least a perception of inequality. The only way to ensure that gays are equal under the charter is to call their unions what they are...marriages. No different, no more or less valid, than anybody else's marriage.

It isn't about the word, it's about the concept that the word describes. Attempting to change the word is attempting to change the concept.

 

[Canucklehead]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

Rev, the term marriage if that quote I posted turns out to be correct and was first used within the church is enough to make my point.
The convention changes as well though to address your point. Multiple wives in a number of cultures over the years was their concept, including present day B.C. among other places . So you can't state there is a universal concept since there clearly isn't.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

The concept does change, which is why the word that we use for it cannot be co-opted to descibe a narrow set of religious religious rituals.

The word, describes the concept of two people making a long-term commitment to each other. That's a universal concept. Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the commitment is between two people.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

We have two official languages, and who knows how many immigrant languages. There are about a zillion dialects of native languages. All have a word that means marriage. Some of the cultures and their related religions have no taboo against same sex marriages.

If you change the word in any of those languages, you are attempting to change the concept. That necessarily leads to at least a perception of inequality. The only way to ensure that gays are equal under the charter is to call their unions what they are...marriages. No different, no more or less valid, than anybody else's marriage.

It isn't about the word, it's about the concept that the word describes. Attempting to change the word is attempting to change the concept.

If it's not about the word, Rev, you wouldn't care what the government decided to call your "union". Obviously it is about the word, and all of the emotion and tradition you ascribe to it. The 'concept' that the word describes - whose concept? Changing the definition of the word also is attempting to change the concept. But I guess if it jives with your idea of what the "concept" of marriage is, it is ok??

 

[MMMike]

You are trying to make religious bigotry into law in an attempt to hide your distaste for gay sex. That is simply untenable in our society.

:roll: I'm not religious in the least, and I don't care at all what homos do in the privacy of their own home. You're really grasping at straws here!!

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

The only common concept that marriage has as a word throughout history is a commitment between two people.

You are trying to define it within the historical traditions of Judeo-Christianity. That isn't the only cultural tradition that we have in Canada. It is not a tradition that all Canadians follow. If you want to use the traditional meaning of marriage, then you must define whose traditions you are defining it by. If those traditions belong to a religion that all Canadians do not follow, then you cannot use that definition.

 

[Canucklehead]

The word, describes the concept of two people making a long-term commitment to each other.

In the case of polygamy that is only partially true. Where the various partners know each other personally, it can become more communal than a single coupling.

Anyway, back to my original point. If the term marriage was indeed first used in the church then the term is religious. If this is the case then the church, at least in 2005 Canada, should have a say in how it's officially used (whether you and I like it or not). Why should we bother locking horns with the church when we can simply use a non-religious, all-inclusive term ? This way nobody's freedom or rights will be trodden upon.

 

[Jay]

"Why should we bother locking horns with the church when we can simply use a non-religious, all-inclusive term ? This way nobody's freedom or rights will be trodden upon."

Where is the fun in that? This way they get to trash the Church and anyone who disagrees with them; lots of fun there. They get to use words like bigot, religious right, homophobia and other fun words. Really what would they do otherwise...they need to have fun too and if there isn't enough fun to have, invent some.