1431: "Marriage"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
ilduri
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:59 am UTC
Location: Canada

1431: "Marriage"

Postby ilduri » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:33 am UTC

Image

Alt text: People often say that same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 60s. But in terms of public opinion, same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 90s, when it had already been legal nationwide for 30 years.

In other words, if same-sex marriage were following the same trend as interracial marriage, it would have been legal nationwide some time around 1983.

just adding quotes to the title - Angua
"Butterflies and zebras and moonbeams and fairytales"
she/her

v_mulligan
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:16 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby v_mulligan » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:44 am UTC

This comic isn't quite accurate: although Loving vs. Virginia set a precedent against interracial marriage prohibitions in 1967, many states continued to ban the practice after that. Presumably these bans would have been difficult to enforce following the court ruling, but the legal situation was such that, technically, legal interracial marriage did not exist in many parts of the U.S. well after 1967. The last holdout was Alabama, which removed its state constitutional prohibition against interracial marriage in the year 2000 (and by a narrow referendum margin, even at that late date, having failed to revoke the ban in the state legislature as recently as 1998)!

I mention this because I think it's important for us not to think of bans on interracial marriage as something of the far-distant past. We need to remember the full history of injustice in the U.S. (including the history that has occurred within the lives of a majority of Americans alive today) in order to help us to recognize and fight the injustices that continue today. For those of us who are not LGBTQ individuals, but who are the products of interracial marriages -- and whose parents' marriages would technically have been unrecognized in Alabama until recently -- the arbitrariness of this injustice should should spur us to sympathize with and support LGBTQ individuals in their quest for marriage equality.

Istaro
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:00 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Istaro » Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:45 am UTC

Have we officially switched to no quotation marks around comic titles in thread subjects?

User avatar
Uncle Sherm
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:09 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Uncle Sherm » Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:59 am UTC

What purpose does the marriage license requirement serve these days? It seems counter-intuitive that there would be a legal requirement to acquire a license that legally can't be denied.

chayanin
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:17 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby chayanin » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:33 am UTC

Uncle Sherm wrote:What purpose does the marriage license requirement serve these days? It seems counter-intuitive that there would be a legal requirement to acquire a license that legally can't be denied.


I'm a bit confused about how marriage licence work. You have to obtain it before having a wedding?

I think in my country, we need to register for a marriage certificate, pretty much like doing a birth certificate or legal name change. That's what matters for any official purpose. (We don't exactly have that ceremonial marriage pronouncement before an authority [e.g. priest] culture.)

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5482
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:44 am UTC

Yeah, as far as I understand it, "license" is a bit of a misleading term when it comes to marriage (in the US). It's not that it's permitting you to do anything that you weren't permitted to do before. It's just granting the two of you a certain joint legal status. It's a lot more like incorporating a business than it is acquiring permission to hunt/fish/operate a vehicle/other things that would otherwise be prohibited.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby slinches » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:56 am UTC

Ninja'd a bit on this, but ... The fundamental problem is that the social/religious institution of marriage has been coopted as a legal status that grants some specific allowances in "family law" and tax codes that have significant advantages.

This leads to the more fundamental religious folk arguing that gay marriage is an affront to god while the pro side is trying to argue that any committed couple should have hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

The real solution is to divorce the legal status from "marriage" itself and then reassess the need for each special grant of status in the law and who should be eligible for them. But that would take a major rewrite of long established law, so it'll never happen.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5482
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:13 am UTC

Agreed with slinches completely. Any special status of marriage that has to do with raising children should occur automatically upon parenthood, no formal marriage required. Any special status of marriage that has to do with cohabitation / sharing of resources / etc (e.g. for tax purposes) should occur automatically upon cohabitation, no formal marriage required. (And should be applicable to people cohabitating for non-romantic purposes as well; if two friends/siblings/whatever want to buy a house together and share food and other expenses together the way a married couple would, they deserve whatever tax status the married couple would get for that too. Maybe require a formal "incorporation of household" for this or something, if necessary). Wherever possible, special statuses should be granted one by one as soon as the relevant facts obtain, without any formal procedure required. Some things, like hospital visitation, inheritance, etc, might require special registration of those statuses, but seriously those should be done explicitly anyway; family shouldn't always get visitation rights (and the power to make decisions over an unconscious patient) automatically, what if that person hated their family and would never want them deciding anything for them, or even seeing them in their vulnerable state?

Legal marriage is a terrible way of handling basically everything it handles, and it should be abolished from law completely. If religious groups want to continue performing legally irrelevant "marriage ceremonies", that's their business, and they can exclude whoever they want from their private religious rites.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Kit. » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:16 am UTC

slinches wrote:The real solution is to divorce the legal status from "marriage" itself and then reassess the need for each special grant of status in the law and who should be eligible for them.

That's supposing that same-sex couples only want their legal status, but not social status to be recognized.

Which I doubt. Humans are social animals.

User avatar
Philbert
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:32 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Philbert » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:21 am UTC


User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby orthogon » Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:13 am UTC

Kit. wrote:
slinches wrote:The real solution is to divorce the legal status from "marriage" itself and then reassess the need for each special grant of status in the law and who should be eligible for them.

That's supposing that same-sex couples only want their legal status, but not social status to be recognized.

It depends what you mean by "social status". If it's about what society formally recognises, then isn't that the same as "legal status"? And if you mean "social status" more broadly, then at best we can use legislation (along with demonstrations, opinion columns and situation comedies) as a bluntish instrument to lead public opinion or to encapsulate what society at large has generally already decided. Stuff like whether you ought to expect to bring your same-sex partner to a dinner party might possibly be somewhat influenced by the existence of same-sex marriage, but in the end it's something the host is free to decide based on their own prejudices. But society already recognises a far wider and more nuanced range of relationship statuses (?) than the law is ever likely to incorporate, much as I would like to hear the House of Commons debating a motion as to what hospital visiting rights a fuckbuddy should have.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

stianhat
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:31 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby stianhat » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:57 am UTC

Kit. wrote:That's supposing that same-sex couples only want their legal status, but not social status to be recognized.

Which I doubt. Humans are social animals.


Well, no. You can't force anyone to accept something they don't just because you feel like it is acceptable. That is just the same situation reversed. What you can do is separate the legal issues from the social issues so people are free to hate whatever they want - but everyone gets the same legal treatment - i.e we are all equal under the law.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Diadem » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:57 am UTC

How can support for interracial marriage that be that small in the late 50s? That would mean opposition was not only near universal among whites, but also significant among African Americans. Is that correct?

(Quick question: It feels weird to capitalize African American when I'm not capitalizing white. But not capitalizing African American also feels weird. Which one is correct?)
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby orthogon » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:21 am UTC

Diadem wrote:How can support for interracial marriage that be that small in the late 50s? That would mean opposition was not only near universal among whites, but also significant among African Americans. Is that correct?

(Quick question: It feels weird to capitalize African American when I'm not capitalizing white. But not capitalizing African American also feels weird. Which one is correct?)

In my view, your instinct is correct. In English you must capitalise both proper nouns and their associated adjectives. "Whites" is more tricky. Personally I prefer to avoid using "white" and "black" as nouns, but I don't know if others share my queasiness over this. For me an adjective (e.g. "black people") emphasises that the characteristic in question is just one attribute of the person, whereas the noun could imply that it's the single most important, fundamental characteristic; that it's fundamental to who they are. The same thing applies to "gays" vs "gay people", although it's not always so easy ("lesbian people" and "female people" are unacceptably awkward; "lesbian women" is just about ok if a bit tautologous).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Plasma Mongoose
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:09 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Plasma Mongoose » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:25 am UTC

Since traditional marriage has been falling while same-sex marriage has been rising, I wonder how long it will be before same-sex marriage becomes more common than traditional marriage.
A virus walks into a bar, the bartender says "We don't serve viruses in here".
The virus replaces the bartender and says "Now we do!"

Dr. Gamera
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Dr. Gamera » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:27 am UTC

Diadem wrote:How can support for interracial marriage that be that small in the late 50s? That would mean opposition was not only near universal among whites, but also significant among African Americans. Is that correct?


Details here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

The 1958 poll was whites-only. Gallup didn't ask again until 1968. Even in 1968, blacks (to use Gallup's terminology) approved of "marriage between whites and non-whites" (again, Gallup) only 56% of the time, with 33% disapproving.

Titanium Dragon
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:35 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Titanium Dragon » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:44 am UTC

Diadem wrote:(Quick question: It feels weird to capitalize African American when I'm not capitalizing white. But not capitalizing African American also feels weird. Which one is correct?)


African-American is capitalized because the words are derived from proper nouns (Africa and America); white is not, because it is not derived from a proper noun. Thus black and white are not capitalized, but African-American or European-American would be.

If you're talking about race, "black" and "white" are probably the best terms to use because an immigrant from Egypt or South Africa would be "African-American" (as they are from Africa, and they are American now) but would be classified as white, whereas an immigrant from, say, Jamaica would be Jamaican-American but would be racially classified as black.

Of course, one can point out that "black" is not actually a single race but actually a number of separate population groups in sub-Saharan Africa which we lump together as "black" because the distinctions between said population groups are utterly irrelevant to us.

Really it is all a bit dumb.

Plasma Mongoose wrote:Since traditional marriage has been falling while same-sex marriage has been rising, I wonder how long it will be before same-sex marriage becomes more common than traditional marriage.


It won't. The phenomena are caused by two different effects. Traditional marriage has been falling because fewer people are getting married and more are getting divorced, though from what I've read apparently that has actually stabilized and even reversed itself somewhat, as young people are apparently more likely to stay together than their parents were for reasons which aren't entirely clear. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage has been increasing in popularity because it has become increasingly legal; however, it is very likely that this is an artifact of legalization rather than an actual rise in commitment in said couples above and beyond the population as a whole. Given the scarcity of gays and bisexuals (the most generous estimates put non-straights at 10% of the population, while the more realistic ones posit closer to 2% gay and 2% bisexual) the "traditional" marriage rate would have to fall below 4% for them to even have a chance, and that would assume 100% of them got married, which they wouldn't. Given that the general trends for gays seem to mostly mirror that of the general population, it is likely that commitment between gay couples will track with those for the general population within 10-15 years of general legalization.

v_mulligan wrote:This comic isn't quite accurate: although Loving vs. Virginia set a precedent against interracial marriage prohibitions in 1967, many states continued to ban the practice after that. Presumably these bans would have been difficult to enforce following the court ruling, but the legal situation was such that, technically, legal interracial marriage did not exist in many parts of the U.S. well after 1967. The last holdout was Alabama, which removed its state constitutional prohibition against interracial marriage in the year 2000 (and by a narrow referendum margin, even at that late date, having failed to revoke the ban in the state legislature as recently as 1998)!


The other problem with the comic is that at the present rate, we're likely to jump to 100% within a year - and indeed, we're presently in the situation where it looks like we might have 35 states with legalized same-sex marriage within a couple months. There is no split in the circuit courts; given that the Supreme Court seemed to feel that the three circuits with their five states and seven cases, which were all decided uniformly, were acceptable and not worth picking up, while they didn't actually make a ruling on it, the other circuits are probably more or less going to interpret that as the Supreme Court tacitly agreeing with the legal rationale presented there, making it that much less likely that they'll rule against same-sex marriage.

cutterx2202
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:36 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby cutterx2202 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:53 am UTC

I'm trying to understand why our beloved author would risk alienating literally at least half his base for some fuzzy correlation at best. Dilbert brought up the topic, albeit in a much more abrasive manner and lost a large chunk of followers. Doesn't seem like a bright business decision, especially with nothing really being accomplished morally, either, for either argument.

Race and "sexual preference" are completely different issues, both socially and scientifically.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby cellocgw » Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:21 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Yeah, as far as I understand it, "license" is a bit of a misleading term when it comes to marriage (in the US). It's not that it's permitting you to do anything that you weren't permitted to do before. It's just granting the two of you a certain joint legal status. It's a lot more like incorporating a business than it is acquiring permission to hunt/fish/operate a vehicle/other things that would otherwise be prohibited.


And therein lies the basis of much of the heated ranting that goes on in the USA. If we were to, say, define the legal process as a "Civil Union," which confers all the current legal rights such as shared ownership, rights not to testify, health care proxy, etc., and separated all that from a thing called "Marriage," which would have zero legal meaning but could mean whatever any religious organization wanted it to mean (turn sexual intercourse from a sin into a wondrous miracle), then things might go a bit more smoothly overall.

Note, that under this setup, Civil Unions could be terminated, but there'd be no concept of "annulment," and Marriage could be treated however ones $deity's duly appointed spokesperson chose.
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby cellocgw » Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:24 am UTC



I suppose it'd be snarky to suggest that the membership of said governments, being overwhelmingly white male, fully approve of banging any female available but gay sex is Teh Ickies!
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:53 am UTC

cutterx2202 wrote:I'm trying to understand why our beloved author would risk alienating literally at least half his base for some fuzzy correlation at best. Dilbert brought up the topic, albeit in a much more abrasive manner and lost a large chunk of followers. Doesn't seem like a bright business decision, especially with nothing really being accomplished morally, either, for either argument.

Race and "sexual preference" are completely different issues, both socially and scientifically.

He's alienating mayby 10% of his existing audience, and I suspect that he like most of the rest of us will not be sad to see those homophobes go.

The unfortunate thing is that a single comic probably isn't sufficient to accomplish that.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Kit. » Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:02 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
Kit. wrote:
slinches wrote:The real solution is to divorce the legal status from "marriage" itself and then reassess the need for each special grant of status in the law and who should be eligible for them.

That's supposing that same-sex couples only want their legal status, but not social status to be recognized.

It depends what you mean by "social status".

The whole range of social conventions normally applied to long-term human couples. Including (but not limited to) "this is my fuckbuddy, go find your own!"

stianhat wrote:Well, no. You can't force anyone to accept something they don't just because you feel like it is acceptable. That is just the same situation reversed.

No one is saying that being a human is easy.

The point is that you won't change it just by decoupling a law from the moral notion this law was created to protect in the first place. Neither side is going to be satisfied with the result.

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby GodShapedBullet » Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:11 pm UTC

I think it would be interesting to get the number of media depictions of interracial marriage over time as compared to the number of interracial marriages and compare that to the number of media depictions of same-sex marriage over time as compared to the number of same-sex marriages. I'm not sure of a way to find out the number of media depictions of either of these though that I could do easily.

quietahem
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:18 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby quietahem » Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:12 pm UTC

v_mulligan wrote:This comic isn't quite accurate: although Loving vs. Virginia set a precedent against interracial marriage prohibitions in 1967, many states continued to ban the practice after that. Presumably these bans would have been difficult to enforce following the court ruling, but the legal situation was such that, technically, legal interracial marriage did not exist in many parts of the U.S. well after 1967. The last holdout was Alabama, which removed its state constitutional prohibition against interracial marriage in the year 2000 (and by a narrow referendum margin, even at that late date, having failed to revoke the ban in the state legislature as recently as 1998)!


As far as I know, all the states that still had laws against interracial marriage stopped enforcing them in 1967. Alabama's constitutional amendment was essentially symbolic - interracial couples had been marrying there for decades, and the federal courts would not have accepted any attempt to stop them (unless the Supreme Court had a change of heart and overturned Loving). Many of the states that now allow same-sex marriage still have unenforcable laws or constitutional provisions that purport to ban it (though it's still just about conceivable that the Supreme Court could step in and put the bans back in place via a future case, particularly if the composition of the court changes).

slinches wrote:The fundamental problem is that the social/religious institution of marriage has been coopted as a legal status that grants some specific allowances in "family law" and tax codes that have significant advantages.


Marriage has been a legal status for a very long time: the Code of Ur-Nammu, the earliest known code of laws, from about 2100 BCE, contains numerous laws relating to marriage such as "If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay her one mina of silver." I don't think there are many examples of civilizations where marriage has not had social, religious and legal aspects.

slinches wrote:The real solution is to divorce the legal status from "marriage" itself and then reassess the need for each special grant of status in the law and who should be eligible for them. But that would take a major rewrite of long established law, so it'll never happen.


I honestly don't understand why this is seriously suggested as a solution. The majority of opponents of same-sex marriage are opposed to any form of legal recognition of same-sex relationships - many of the state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage contain provisions such as "This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage" (that's from Ohio's constitution). Meanwhile, most LGBT people are not going to be impressed if the legal status of marriage is done away with purely to prevent us from obtaining it, and I doubt whether many currently married people would be happy if their marriage was suddenly renamed to a "civil union" or something. And as it stands, the Supreme Court recognizes a "fundamental right" to marriage under the due process clause, while numerous international agreements (including the UDHR) reference marriage - doing away with the legal status of marriage would legally be very awkward, even if the political will was there.

Kaelin
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Kaelin » Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:20 pm UTC

Awesome strip. I wish I realized this yesterday (college I work at had a seminar on the Loving case last night), but I will definitely helps put a lot of things in context for me.
Last edited by Kaelin on Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:36 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

EugeneStyles
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:59 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby EugeneStyles » Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:26 pm UTC

I found it perhaps ironic and at least humorous that the graph for legal acceptance of interracial marriage looks a bit like mirror-image Oklahoma.

vortighast
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:41 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby vortighast » Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:33 pm UTC

I may as well interject.

As someone who believes marriage is a holy institution between a man and a woman established by God (for life I might add, I feel as strongly about divorce as I do homosexuality), I can't reconcile gay marriage with my beliefs. However, I do believe that a distinction between marriage and civil unions is the best option all around. I was never sure how this ides sat with people on the other side of the argument, but from reading the previous comments it seems to be supported by many.


Also, after seeing the comic, I was curious to see how Randall would handle it, but from my opinion he's not trying to alienate anyone, as he is just presenting facts, no opinions. For me, it's an interesting insight into the relationship between American opinion and legislature.

DanD
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby DanD » Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:34 pm UTC

The fundamental problem is that the social/religious institution of marriage has been coopted as a legal status that grants some specific allowances in "family law" and tax codes that have significant advantages.


The fundamental problem is that the civil/social institution of marriage has been coopted as a religious status.

If you look at the history, the church was a late-comer to defining marriage as a religious sacrament(Catholic)/ceremony (Others). As late as the mid-middle ages, it was a purely civil/contract law/social activity.

Boilerplate
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:05 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Boilerplate » Wed Oct 08, 2014 2:14 pm UTC

DanD wrote:If you look at the history, the church was a late-comer to defining marriage as a religious sacrament(Catholic)/ceremony (Others). As late as the mid-middle ages, it was a purely civil/contract law/social activity.


It turns out that there is lots of stuff in the Bible and Hebrew scriptures about marriage that far predates the middle ages.

jpers36
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby jpers36 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 2:20 pm UTC

DanD wrote:
The fundamental problem is that the social/religious institution of marriage has been coopted as a legal status that grants some specific allowances in "family law" and tax codes that have significant advantages.


The fundamental problem is that the civil/social institution of marriage has been coopted as a religious status.

If you look at the history, the church was a late-comer to defining marriage as a religious sacrament(Catholic)/ceremony (Others). As late as the mid-middle ages, it was a purely civil/contract law/social activity.


As late as the mid-middle ages, there was no such thing as a purely civil/contract law/social activity with no religious impact. The separation of church and state is a more recent phenomenon than that.

Western Rover
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:23 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Western Rover » Wed Oct 08, 2014 2:39 pm UTC

There's a big difference between "approval of" and "should be legal". For example, I don't approve of drinking alcohol: I wouldn't have married someone who does, we don't allow our children to do it (and wouldn't even if it were legal for minors to drink), and if another adult came to me for advice on whether to take up drinking, I would strenuously argue against it. Yet for all that, I don't think that drinking alcohol should be illegal.

That's why I don't think it's so unusual that interracial marriage was legal even while many people disapproved of it. The majority of the population at the time may have had the same attitude toward interracial marriage that I do toward drinking alcohol, but nonetheless thought it should be legal.

User avatar
Zassounotsukushi
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:38 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Zassounotsukushi » Wed Oct 08, 2014 2:40 pm UTC

You might color me skeptical on this one.

What did "approval" mean to the people who were answering these polls? Did they see it as a personal opinion, like "I approve of those people getting married", or did they see it as a policy question of "if those two people ask for a marriage license from the courthouse they should get it"?

Do I expect that people would take the question differently for interracial versus gay marriage? Yes, I do. With gay people, we're talking about something fundamental to who they are and unchangeable. Race in a partnership between and man and a woman has nothing to do with fundamental attraction. If you like women, you should like women of all races approximately equal in terms of pure lust. Because of this interchangeability, I think the word "approve" might be taken to be more of a personal preference for interracial marriage, and more of a policy statement for gay marriage. If you admit that you approve of interracial marriage, it's hard to deny that you should be in the market for a partner of another race... or at least not rule it out. We perceive no similar obligation to gay marriage. I will proudly declare that I approve of gay marriage while refusing to consider a same-sex partner myself, because I have a biological excuse. A similar biological excuse does not exist for opposite-sex people of other races.

Also, reading this chart, someone who is 70 years old today would be nearly 95% likely to have disapproved of interracial marriage when they were 20. That is extraordinarily hard to believe. The average age of senators today is 63.

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 2:51 pm UTC

vortighast wrote:I may as well interject.

As someone who believes marriage is a holy institution between a man and a woman established by God


Image

Marriage is Adam and Eve. But it's equally Solomon and Naamah, and another 700 women, but he also gets 300 women to screw that don't have legal rights like wives do (because the 1,000 women were fine and established by the same deity. It was the wives turning him to other gods, idolatry, that tore the kingdom apart. So the story goes).

It's the rapist and his victim for 50 shekels, I have a little problem with that. That was established by God's decree too. That part of the Book of Deuteronomy is a series of mitzvot (commands) to the Israelites regarding how they ought to conduct themselves in Canaan, the land promised by Yahweh, God of Israel. Maybe you feel differently.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby orthogon » Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:02 pm UTC

Zassounotsukushi wrote:Do I expect that people would take the question differently for interracial versus gay marriage? Yes, I do. With gay people, we're talking about something fundamental to who they are and unchangeable. Race in a partnership between and man and a woman has nothing to do with fundamental attraction. If you like women, you should like women of all races approximately equal in terms of pure lust. Because of this interchangeability, I think the word "approve" might be taken to be more of a personal preference for interracial marriage, and more of a policy statement for gay marriage. If you admit that you approve of interracial marriage, it's hard to deny that you should be in the market for a partner of another race... or at least not rule it out. We perceive no similar obligation to gay marriage. I will proudly declare that I approve of gay marriage while refusing to consider a same-sex partner myself, because I have a biological excuse. A similar biological excuse does not exist for opposite-sex people of other races.

I sort of see what you're saying; in fact I was thinking earlier that prohibiting gay marriage is arguably a worse infringement of human rights than prohibiting interracial marriage, because it's less likely that your sexual orientation is so narrow as to exclude potential partners of your own race (though by no means impossible: I'm a straight guy who doesn't find women of all ethnicities equally attractive even on average). But the point is really about being free to marry exactly the person you want to marry, and preventing you from marrying people belonging to a particular arbitrary group is a problem not so much in its own right as because that exact person might happen to belong to that group.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

MGitsfullofsheep
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:16 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby MGitsfullofsheep » Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:19 pm UTC

Hello,

Anyone can anticipate what would be the next step after these two, say, in the next 50 years ?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:21 pm UTC

Dr. Gamera wrote:
Diadem wrote:How can support for interracial marriage that be that small in the late 50s? That would mean opposition was not only near universal among whites, but also significant among African Americans. Is that correct?


Details here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

The 1958 poll was whites-only. Gallup didn't ask again until 1968. Even in 1968, blacks (to use Gallup's terminology) approved of "marriage between whites and non-whites" (again, Gallup) only 56% of the time, with 33% disapproving.


Ah, so a polling issue that...in the context of the times, is probably to be expected, I guess, but not something we'd think of now. Now I want to investigate who Gallup has excluded from polling over history.

cutterx2202 wrote:I'm trying to understand why our beloved author would risk alienating literally at least half his base for some fuzzy correlation at best. Dilbert brought up the topic, albeit in a much more abrasive manner and lost a large chunk of followers. Doesn't seem like a bright business decision, especially with nothing really being accomplished morally, either, for either argument.

Race and "sexual preference" are completely different issues, both socially and scientifically.


I suspect that
A. It's rather less than half his base. XKCD skews towards a fairly educated readership, and thus, probably has a different demographic than Dilbert.
B. He's been getting somewhat more political in his comics of late, it seems. While it bothers me in some contexts when humor places swap over to political messages(looking at you, Cracked), I don't often get this feeling from XKCD, because they usually have at least something of a thoughtful approach(and XKCD has often chosen thoughtfulness over comedy). This one, for instance, brings up an interesting perspective to mull over. So, even though I don't necessarily agree with the "message" here, I don't get the cheated feeling that is so common when I expected humor and get some dude ranting about partisan crap.

So, overall, I don't think it's actually that risky.

vortighast wrote:I may as well interject.

As someone who believes marriage is a holy institution between a man and a woman established by God (for life I might add, I feel as strongly about divorce as I do homosexuality), I can't reconcile gay marriage with my beliefs. However, I do believe that a distinction between marriage and civil unions is the best option all around. I was never sure how this ides sat with people on the other side of the argument, but from reading the previous comments it seems to be supported by many.


It is my experience that a great many opponents to gay marriage have a similar viewpoint, with a significant subset thinking that seperating out the legal aspect from the marriage/social aspect is desirable. IE, you all get civil unions for legal matters, but the church or what not handles the marriage stuff.

The pro-gay marriage camp, however, tends to view such proposals as giving them something that's second rate. So...there's a gap in viewpoints here that's hard to bridge.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:34 pm UTC

Zassounotsukushi wrote:Also, reading this chart, someone who is 70 years old today would be nearly 95% likely to have disapproved of interracial marriage when they were 20. That is extraordinarily hard to believe. The average age of senators today is 63.


Only if you assume that attitudes toward [social issue] are independent of age. It's more likely that the ~5% approval was disproportionately among the younger generation and the disapproving elders either died or went quiet in the face of the rising tide.

Western Rover
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:23 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Western Rover » Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:35 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
vortighast wrote:[...] I do believe that a distinction between marriage and civil unions is the best option all around. I was never sure how this ides sat with people on the other side of the argument, but from reading the previous comments it seems to be supported by many.


It is my experience that a great many opponents to gay marriage have a similar viewpoint, with a significant subset thinking that seperating out the legal aspect from the marriage/social aspect is desirable. IE, you all get civil unions for legal matters, but the church or what not handles the marriage stuff.

The pro-gay marriage camp, however, tends to view such proposals as giving them something that's second rate. So...there's a gap in viewpoints here that's hard to bridge.


Which proposal do they view as second rate? The notion that the state continues to bless opposite sex partners with the special legal status of marriage, while providing civil unions to same sex partners that include all benefits but the name of marriage? Yes, I can see how that would be viewed as second rate.

But the notion that the state no longer recognizes marriage for anyone, but requires everyone to enter a civil union if they want any legal recognition (set aside the enormous practical difficulty of taking this step): is this proposal viewed as second rate, and if so, why?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:49 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:It's the rapist and his victim for 50 shekels, I have a little problem with that. That was established by God's decree too. That part of the Book of Deuteronomy is a series of mitzvot (commands) to the Israelites regarding how they ought to conduct themselves in Canaan, the land promised by Yahweh, God of Israel. Maybe you feel differently.


In context, that's more of a "you break it, you bought it" than "plan B for getting married" - the sexual politics of women requiring support from a man in order to survive (aside from an exceptional few) aside, being given responsibility for the woman's well-being and made to pay a non-trivial price in addition is a step up from being able to rape a woman, leaving her cast out without a means of support and not have any real consequences...

vortighast
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:41 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby vortighast » Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:57 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:It's the rapist and his victim for 50 shekels, I have a little problem with that. That was established by God's decree too. That part of the Book of Deuteronomy is a series of mitzvot (commands) to the Israelites regarding how they ought to conduct themselves in Canaan, the land promised by Yahweh, God of Israel. Maybe you feel differently.


In context, that's more of a "you break it, you bought it" than "plan B for getting married" - the sexual politics of women requiring support from a man in order to survive (aside from an exceptional few) aside, being given responsibility for the woman's well-being and made to pay a non-trivial price in addition is a step up from being able to rape a woman, leaving her cast out without a means of support and not have any real consequences...



Exactly. The same with divorce: God has always hated divorce, but if the people are going to do it regardless, it's better to institute provisions to best protect all parties involved. Jesus in turn corrects the faulty views that because God made provisions for these that they were acceptable.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jonhaug and 92 guests