Question for hard-right theocrats

[Cartman]

Marriage has HISTORICALLY been defined as "the covenant between a man, woman and God". Period.

You dont change history--especially one as old as that.

Marriage in Canada has been changed and for good reasons (Currie, 1989, p.275).

"Until the twentieth century a man could not be convicted of rape upon his wife as long as the ordinary relations of marriage subsisted, illustrated by the case of R vs. Clarence (1888). This case was reserved for consideration of all judges. In the final decision, the majority supported the general proposition that a husband can never commit rape upon his wife because the wife cannot retract the consent which by law she is deemed to give her husband upon marriage...until 1983 the Canadian Criminal Code defined rape as forced sexual intercourse with a person other than one's wife".

No law should be set in stone; change is a constant. If you want to be married by a church, then go ahead 'cuz I won't stop you. I really don't care. But my marriage as defined by the Canadian state has absolutely nothing to do with God so please, keep your mits off of my marriage and stop trying to define it in relation to God.

I don't care about "God's" laws, I care about Canada's laws.

[Tawasakm]

Marriage has HISTORICALLY been defined as "the covenant between a man, woman and God". Period.

I looked up marriage with my favourite dictionary. Please feel free to follow the link. God does not seem to be part of the definition.

Marriage definitions

Here are some as samples:

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law

Heres one that should raise a few eyebrows:

A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

I, for one, would like someone to explain how same sex marriage would effect nuclear families. I have some interest in psychology and have not encountered anything to explain this outside of religious dogma. If someone can give me a good explanation then you will be providing me with a net gain on my current knowledge. The silence, however, has seemed resounding.

[Chloe]

Some people believe and I've heard this on T.V

that allowing same sex marriage removes the standards that society has been living by for so long. Therefore legalizing same sex marriage phases out the standard we've been living by. And so if we can phase this standard out, what is keeping us from phasing out the standard of marriage from being between two people to being between three people, who will make the argument that they are all deeply in love and deserve to be together, and raising children together. After all, three people rasing a child is better than two, cuz the work load will be less between three people. This is the kind of argument people who want to be in this kind of relationship will have. Are you following. This is no joke, I heard someone saying this. Since Threesomes for some is no longer an experiement, nor is it a one time thing. there are people who are actually in these kind of relationship.

Basically what I'm saying is this.... if we can redefine the definition of marriage to suit the times we live in now, when we want marriage to be between TWO people, then whats stopping us from redefinig it again for people who live in a time when Three people having a relationship want to make it legal. We can also redefine it for those who want to marry people within the family. Therefore the nuclear family concept will almost be like a thing of the past. You may see this as crazy, but the guy on T.V said that removing the standard as it stands now, which is one man one woman, for as long as its been now will only allow for more redefining in the futur in order to suit everyones needs.

This is why the nuclear family is threatened by same-sex marriage.

[willy]

Sanctity has already been removed from the legal secular definition of marriage.

Note the ever increasing divorce rate and multiple marriages.

That is the destruction of the nuclear family. Commitment has been replaced by connivance and comfort. The stability and safety that children need is replaced with a me first approach. The feminist movement successful challenged the different role definitions for men and women. They are to be the same. A woman is now some how not whole unless she can self satisfy through career, education some how self actualize and a man should feminize and become more nurturing. The family has become an accessory. The introduction of same sex marriage is just the natural progression from a covenant relationship to a simple contract. Contracts are not based on sacrificial service and grace but rather a mutual benefit that does not occur often in marriage. This will result in a continued devaluation of these relationships.

To me marriage is a sanctified relationship blessed by God and not a contract with the state.

I think states should have contracts for long term relationships that set out the responsibilities for sharing and dividing property. This is all modern marriage is becoming and why limit this to two of anything.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... legalizing same sex marriage phases out the standard we've been living by. And so if we can phase this standard out, what is keeping us from phasing out the standard of marriage from being between two people to being between three people, ... We can also redefine it for those who want to marry people within the family. Therefore the nuclear family concept will almost be like a thing of the past. ... removing the standard as it stands now, which is one man one woman, ... will only allow for more redefining in the futur in order to suit everyones needs.

This is why the nuclear family is threatened by same-sex marriage.

Chloe, thank you for your reply. Unfortunately it did not move me very much further ahead in my question. You suggest, perhaps rightly, that changing the standard now will permit or invite further changes to the standard in the future. However, that leaves untouched two important points:

First, as a variation on the slipery slope argument, it offers no specific objection to the particular change being considered right now. All the harm you suggest appears to be future and conditional upon further changes which may or may not happen.

Second, your reply does not provide anything to connect the changes (however large they may be) to any specific harm.

I don't see how having some people doing a new thing will hurt the ability of others to do a traditional thing. And I don't see why the new thing poses any problem by itself.

[Prince Metternich]

Hey guys: Thanks for the invite. Apparently, anyone that opposes gay marriage is a "hard-rightie" or whatever.

Sigh. OK, I'll patronize you.

Is marriage defined on the basis of government legislation? Is the fact that grass is green and the sky is blue? Apparently, because all of these instances of objective reality are easily changed by way of legislative amendment. After all, if the state dictates that marriage can be a union between a man and a man, that grass is actually a nice shade of mauve, and that the moon is made of cheese, then all of those things must certainly be true.

Of course, the people that started this thread very likely nod their heads in agreement while the state informs them that it is fair and equitable that 50%+ of their incomes be confiscated and redistributed.

Suckers.

[lowly_caterpillar]

HYOOOOOO!

ha! nice to see a sense of humor, prince m....

I just don't see how one couples ceremony is going to harm another persons family in another province/state, why are people concerning themselves in the personal affairs of others, what true "harm" would come of letting same sex couples marry, you will still have the freedom to believe that it's wrong and they'll still think that your wrong. I hear you all saying that this will harm the traditional family, and that that would pretty much bring on the apocalypse, but we don't need to have mom handing us a paprbag lunch every morning to have good morals or standards so how would this be detrimental to society?

[Prince Metternich]

Is it going to hurt me? Of course not. Duh. Why am I involving myself in the personal affairs of of others? Well excuse me, but do the rulings of several courts and sloughs of government legislation count as "personal affairs"? This is a public policy issue. I can discuss it for as long as I damn well please, until the theocracy of political correctness you'd undoubtedly favour is imposed upon me.

[Black Dog]

Is marriage defined on the basis of government legislation? Is the fact that grass is green and the sky is blue? Apparently, because all of these instances of objective reality are easily changed by way of legislative amendment. After all, if the state dictates that marriage can be a union between a man and a man, that grass is actually a nice shade of mauve, and that the moon is made of cheese, then all of those things must certainly be true.

What a bullshit analogy. There are objective facts to demonstrate the composition of the moon and the colour of the sky. Marriage, however, is a man-made institution and thus subject to whatever changes man deems necessary.

[Prince Metternich]

Thats only true if you think that marriage exists solely at the pleasure of the state. If the government announced that it would no longer recognize any form of marriage, would marriage cease to exist? Of course not. Marriage exists within civil society, separate from the state.

All of this prattle makes the presumption that marriage can only exist if the courts and legislatures allow it to. As though marriage was non-existant prior to some governor coming along and saying, "I will marriage into existence." And what the state invents, the state can amend. Nonsense!

How typically Canadian; a feeble deference to the state even in areas where the state has no effective authority. I take it you're from Ontario?

[Black Dog]

Thats only true if you think that marriage exists solely at the pleasure of the state. If the government announced that it would no longer recognize any form of marriage, would marriage cease to exist? Of course not. Marriage exists within civil society, separate from the state.

Wrong again. Without state recognition, marriage is purely a symbolic measure between the individuals involved. However, with state recognition of marriage comes a host of legal and economic benefits. So if the state decided to stop recongizing marriages it would also have to cease providing those benefits.

All of this prattle makes the presumption that marriage can only exist if the courts and legislatures allow it to. As though marriage was non-existant prior to some governor coming along and saying, "I will marriage into existence." And what the state invents, the state can amend. Nonsense

As I said, marriage without state recognition is purely a symbolic gesture and, therefore, it would be up to the individuals involved to decide what their definition of marriage is.

You seem to be operating on the flawed assumption that there's a universal, immutable definition of marriage. There is no such thing. Your argument is a crock.

[Tawasakm]

Blast I was replying when I noticed Blackdog already had...

Since I've opened up this window I should try and contribute something in addition to his comments.

How typically Canadian; a feeble deference to the state even in areas where the state has no effective authority.

You think the state has no effective authority over marriage? How do you explain the existence of legal and economic benefits enshrined in law which are applicable to everyone?

As though marriage was non-existant prior to some governor coming along and saying, "I will marriage into existence." And what the state invents, the state can amend.

Wherever and however the custom of marriage originiated it is now within the jurisdiction of the state whether you approve of that fact or not. So the state determines the definition of marriage and is able to alter it. The State didn't will cabbage into existence but they can still tax it and regulate it.

Your argument, it seems to me, is predicated on the conclusion that no government can own the 'idea' of marriage. And it is true that everyone can have different ideas about marriage - ideas which they may express and formalise between each other in their own ways if the State dissolved marriage. Regardless of individual ideals of marriage, however, it is the state that determines the definition of marriage and regulates it.

[Prince Metternich]

You people apparently live rather sterile lives. Are the financial benefits and government transfers of wealth all that marriage consists of? Are all that bind married couples together those benefits?

The State didn't will cabbage into existence but they can still tax it and regulate it.

Sure, it can tax, regulate, and do whatever it likes as long as it falls within the state's effective purview. But it can't simply will that cabbage to suddenly have a new chemical makeup, or that cabbage will suddenly become a high source of protein, or that your car will, from this point forward, be able to run on crushed cabbage.

Marriage existed long before any of you or any of our exalted justices were around, and it will coninue to exist after we're all wormfeed. Its rooted in something more substantive and durable than the dictates of the fleeting state. The state can no more alter it than it can alter any objective reality. Not that it won't try, in its hubris.

But as deferential little Canadians, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend any power greater than the almighty state.

You seem to be operating on the flawed assumption that there's a universal, immutable definition of marriage. There is no such thing.

Please don't fault me for your stunning inability to recognize that which is obvious in life.

That having been said: Of course there is not a universal definition of marriage, but only because buffoons like yourself fail to recognize what is right before you. Doing so would kneecap your little relativistic argument, wouldn't it?

[Tawasakm]

But as deferential little Canadians, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend any power greater than the almighty state.

Actually, I'm Australian. Deductive reasoning at its finest there.

[Prince Metternich]

My apologies, and allow me to revise: You are as cowardly as any deferential Canadian.

[Black Dog]

You people apparently live rather sterile lives. Are the financial benefits and government transfers of wealth all that marriage consists of? Are all that bind married couples together those benefits?

No, there are also those physical and emotional bonds. Which still doesn't exclude same sex relationships.

Marriage existed long before any of you or any of our exalted justices were around, and it will coninue to exist after we're all wormfeed. Its rooted in something more substantive and durable than the dictates of the fleeting state. The state can no more alter it than it can alter any objective reality. Not that it won't try, in its hubris.

Bollocks. Throughout history, marriage has evolved and changed with society according to shifting cultural values and pressures. I shouldn't have to point out that at some points in history (and indeed, to this day) marriage was defined in some societies as a union between a man and any number of women. Similarly, in our own society, marriage was at one time defined, both legally and socially, as the union of one man and one woman of the same race. Times change and the definition of marriage is not immutable, despite your feeble protestations to the contrary.

It would certainly bolster your argument is you were able to define what "thing" marriage (as you define it) is rooted in.

On second thought, it probably wouldn't.

But as deferential little Canadians, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend any power greater than the almighty state.

Pointless ad hominem.

Please don't fault me for your stunning inability to recognize that which is obvious in life.

That having been said: Of course there is not a universal definition of marriage, but only because buffoons like yourself fail to recognize what is right before you. Doing so would kneecap your little relativistic argument, wouldn't it?

I can certainly recognize a lousy argument when I see it.

Tell you what, o-enlightened one: why don't you edify us as to what great secret you hold that would "kneecap" the arguments arrayed against you. After all, if you have such a knockout punch at your disposal, why bother wasting our time with your shoddy logic and smug superiority? Come on: bring it .

[Tawasakm]

You are as cowardly as any deferential Canadian.

1) My views are the result of an intellectual process of reasoning which, while they may differ from your own conclusions, are quite valid. My reasoning has not been effected by either an excess or absence of courage.

More clever deduction from you?

2) Canadians who infer that the State possesses the power to define the reality of marriage for Canadian citizens (and entitlements etc) are arriving at a conclusion which would not appear to be motivated by cowardice or 'deferrence'. We all surrender certain rights to the state in exchange for certain benefits. If this is what you term 'deference' then you must disagree with the entire foundation of government?

3) Making as a premise of an argument that those who disagree with you must necesarily be 'cowardly' and 'deferential' does not make for a particularly well reasoned argument.

[Prince Metternich]

The problem here is that you possess the requisite hubris to actually believe that marriage is a man-made institution, as though an inventor one day walked into his shop, had a bright idea, and "made marriage."

You're wrong. The automobile is a mad-made entity, and you are right that, in this capacity, man may tinker with it as he sees fit. But marriage is not "made." It is the product of the collective human experience, fired through time and cemented in tradition. It is rooted in emotion and our collective psyche, much like friendship, love, and a collection of other affective orientations we hold toward one another. This is the point that I was getting at when asking whether government benefits for marriage really made a difference. When marriage is viewed in its totality, those benefits aren't worth a hill 'o beans.

And yet a government of a feeble western country elected for the course of four years sees itself as fit to unilaterally alter this. Can the government also alter friendship, can it alter love? I found it particularly amusing that you took great pains to outline the evolution of marriage, only to throw away the importance of that painstaking historical process and hand over all rights to defining marriage to the state.

I'm sorry that you worship the wrong god. Marriage will likely evolve, and when society notices that it has, then I'll recognize that along with everyone else. That has probably already occurred. But I'll be damned if the pack of corrupt finite gauleiters known as the Liberal Party of Canada think they can redefine the human experience for me.

[Black Dog]

But marriage is not "made." It is the product of the collective human experience, fired through time and in cemented in tradition. Its rooted in emotion and our collective psyche, much like friendship, love, and collection of other affective orientations we hold toward one another. This is the point that I was getting at when asking whether government benefits for marriage really made a difference. When marriage is viewed in its totality, those benefits aren't worth a hill 'o beans.

Very verbose, but ultimately, missing the point entirely. We're dealing strictly with a civil issue regarding the legal definition of marriage. Regardless of what civil sanction marriage receives, no action of the state can change the meaning of marriage for the individual participants. The symbolic value of marriage which you speak of will remain intact and could even grow with its expansion to segments of the population previously exempt.

Can the government also alter friendship, can it alter love?

Does the government currently issue friendship licences or friendship benefits?

I found it particularly amusing that you took great pains to outline the evolution of marriage, only to throw away the importance of that painstaking historical process and hand over all rights to marriage to the state.

That ship sailed a long time ago when the state began sanctioning who can and cannot get married.

I'm very sorry that you worship the wrong god.

You can say what you want about me, but leave B'aal out of this.

I'll be damned if a pack of corrupt finite gauleiters think they can redefine the human experience for me.

As I said, above, they can't. Nor is anyone trying to. Whether gay people can marry or not, the personal importance you attach to marriage cannot be changed with legislation, any more than they can change my total ambivilance towards the institution.

[Tawasakm]

The problem here is that you possess the requisite hubris to actually believe that marriage is a man-made institution, as though an inventor one day walked into his shop, had a bright idea, and "made marriage."

If you don't think marriage was developed by humans for humans then where do you think it came from? Before you tell me God created it remember to take into account that marriage exists in many cultures and religions.

The automobile is a mad-made entity, and you are right that, in this capacity, man may tinker with it as he sees fit. But marriage is not "made."

No you are wrong. Marriage is a man-made construct. The difference between your automobile example and marriage is that one is a physical object and the other is a developed custom and legal reality. Both are man made but you seem to think the fact that one is not a physical construct denies this reality.

It is rooted in emotion and our collective psyche, much like friendship, love, and a collection of other affective orientations we hold toward one another.

Humans are social beings. The need for relationships is inherent in us. For example we seek friendship, collaborative effort and, pertinent to your point, romantic fulfillment. Through the ages different cultures and individuals have found romantic fulfillment/companionship in different ways. The different customs of marriage that have evolved over time are a result of our need for romantic fulfillment. That is what is rooted in our psyche. Marriage is man made product which has resulted, over time, from this need.

This is the point that I was getting at when asking whether government benefits for marriage really made a difference. When marriage is viewed in its totality, those benefits aren't worth a hill 'o beans.

Of course they make a difference. Whether you like it or not an important part of the reality of marriage is defined, and regulated, by the state. Marriage 'in its totality' will mean many different things to many different people. The actions of the state in regulating marriage are the only thing creating any of the universality which you believe exists in marriage. Anything outside of that regulation is relative to the individuals concerned.

And yet a government of a feeble western country elected for the course of four years sees itself as fit to unilaterally alter this.

I question your assumption that such an action would be unilateral. It is a democratic system. People will get their say. A body of elected representatives voting to form a concensus is not unilateral action.

I'm sorry that you worship the wrong god.

I am interested to see how your deductive reasoning allowed you to determine whom I worship (assuming I worship at all). You seem to be attempting to attach a label here to those who disagree with you in order to be able to dismiss them more easily. The label doesn't fit so why not just stick to refuting our points?