1431: "Marriage"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:02 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
jgh wrote:Weren't there any states were same-sex marriage wasn't technically illegal because it hadn't occured to the lawmakers to actually make it illegal? Same-sex marriage wasn't actually illegal in England&Wales until 1971 after two women presented themselves at a registry office and challenged the registrar to point out where in the 1949 Marriage Act it required the couple to be of different sexes. Some US states inherited their legal code from England&Wales, so it wouldn't surprise me to find a few that were still based on, eg, the 1753 Marriage Act.


Exactly, so whatever the next "thing" is (for argument's sake, let's say marriage between humans and humanoid robots that can legally be considered artificial "men" or "women") probably doesn't have any law against it, because it never occurred to lawmakers either.


People marrying not-people could well be it. I've seen stories claiming that say, some japanese fellow is marrying a doll or some such. Granted, this isn't anything like a movement now, but add enough tech, and maybe it'll become attractive to people.

That doesn't seem particularly urgent, though. More like a distant maybe-possibility. Of course, marriage doesn't HAVE to constantly have a legal controversy. Maybe we'll all argue over something else endlessly instead for a while.

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby MGitsfullofsheep » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:04 pm UTC

Seli wrote:common sense dictates that legally recognized marriage seems to have the best papers to keep the term if one would choose to go that path. Especially since civil unions in many countries are being used as a lesser form of recognized relationship.


That's not so obvious.
I've head that (in France at least) "Mariage" was religious first (catholic, to be precise), current civil laws just provided legal ground.
It's not surprising as in the past, religion provided rules, and civil laws appeared later when state and religion separated.
Now, if other religions use the word "Mariage" (and they do), that's okay with them, no need to invent many names.

The conclusion is clear to me: having civil union named for what it is is no problem (and no one in France seems to argue with that naming priority, actually people that are against mostly say "it's too late").
Last edited by MGitsfullofsheep on Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:05 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

CBusAlex
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:47 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby CBusAlex » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:05 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote: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.


This seems like a solution in search of a problem. If the standard bundle of rights and responsibilities currently associated with marriage were so terrible, you'd see more opposite-sex couples clamoring for civil unions then same-sex couples clamoring for marriage.

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby brenok » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:17 pm UTC

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:
Kit. wrote:
MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Anyone can anticipate what would be the next step after these two, say, in the next 50 years ?

Zach Weiner (SMBC comics) regularly does.


Hum, I have not noticed that, I have not read all of them, though.

It's easy to find SMBC on marriage, e.g. on ohnorobot with keyword marriage.
The only ones I could find on topic are 1748 and 2622 on gay marriage, but it's not anticipation.

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

Any specific links ?


I think he might be referring to this

Spoiler:
Image

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Foelhe » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:18 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:All of the previous discussion was about marriage, though, so you're answering a different "what's next?" than what was asked.


Maybe I wasn't clear. My point was, "There's this huge issue right now, and it's been a huge issue for awhile, but I had no idea it was a huge issue until not that long ago. So there could be some huge issues I don't know about still."

Trans marriage is a done deal, you're right, but there may be some other kind of marriage that people have wanted for millennia, which I don't know about because it's never hit my social circle. Or there may not be. I'm just throwing out possibilities.

jpers36 wrote:First, I'm not sure anyone on this thread has outed themselves as members of "fundamentalist Christianity."


I kinda feel like you're splitting hairs, here. Let me take vortighast's first quote and break it down to two easy pieces:

I Don't Like This Thing. ("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.")

So Let's Make It Illegal. ("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.")

Vortighast's entire point was that we should bend the law to match what he thinks is moral. That's claiming the moral high ground. Arguing whether he's a fundamentalist or not is kinda off-point.

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:In some US states, maybe.
In France we have had a civil union named PACS for about 15 years. It has most effects of marriage, no condition on sex, easier to break.

Thay may explain why the PACS was not aligned with marriage. Aligning the PACS with marriage would have provided full legal status.
Doing something different suggests the pro gay marriage camp wanted something else.
Some people say there was no actual strong demand, the french government just did that to divide and rule.


The fact that the PACS is different than marriage kind of undermines your point. Civil unions are generally treated as different from marriage. People don't just immediately forget that context.

In my experience, gay people want to be treated the same as everyone else, and carefully crafting the law so you don't have to call their relationships the same thing you call your relationships is not doing that. It's also, again, pointless.

Some people say the government is run by reptilian aliens. I'm just saying.

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:I've head that (in France at least) "Mariage" was religious first (catholic, to be precise), current civil laws just provided legal ground.


France didn't exist in a cultural vacuum. Marriage came from other places, and while I can't argue about which is "first" I do feel pretty comfortable saying that marriage has been both a religious and a legal thing for about 2500 years. Arguing over who had dibs now is just stupid.

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby MGitsfullofsheep » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:23 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Any specific links ?


I think he might be referring to this

Spoiler:
Image


:lol: Excellent!

That's typical SMBC and I guess that's the closest to the topic of anticipation about marriage we can get!

Intellectually, it's only anticipating in one direction (conditions on the spouse), not the others like polygamy etc, but still it's funny.

Thanks for sharing.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26763
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:29 pm UTC

jpers36 wrote:First, I'm not sure anyone on this thread has outed themselves as members of "fundamentalist Christianity."
I'm comfortable treating, "marriage is a holy institution between a man and a woman established by God (for life)," as an admission of Christian fundamentalism.
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)

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby MGitsfullofsheep » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:31 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:France didn't exist in a cultural vacuum. Marriage came from other places, and while I can't argue about which is "first" I do feel pretty comfortable saying that marriage has been both a religious and a legal thing for about 2500 years. Arguing over who had dibs now is just stupid.


Of course. That's why I wrote : "It's not surprising as in the past, religion provided rules, and civil laws appeared later when state and religion separated."

Continuing this point would be squabbllng about, after state and religion get separated, which side has rights about the name "Marriage". So I offer we stop this point here.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Foelhe » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:37 pm UTC

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:
Foelhe wrote:France didn't exist in a cultural vacuum. Marriage came from other places, and while I can't argue about which is "first" I do feel pretty comfortable saying that marriage has been both a religious and a legal thing for about 2500 years. Arguing over who had dibs now is just stupid.


Of course. That's why I wrote : "It's not surprising as in the past, religion provided rules, and civil laws appeared later when state and religion separated."

Continuing this point would be squabbllng about, after state and religion get separated, which side has rights about the name "Marriage". So I offer we stop this point here.


... It really wouldn't be. My whole point is that marriage is both religious and legal, and it has been for a long time, and people have sometimes had marriages that were only legal or only religious, and that doesn't in anyway diminish the other. Claim-staking serves no purpose whatsoever.

But sure, if you're tired of the conversation I have no problem with that.

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby MGitsfullofsheep » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:44 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:But sure, if you're tired of the conversation I have no problem with that.


I'm trying to participate in an interesting discussion and it implies not discussing endlessly every leaf of some tree-of-thought.

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Some people say there was no actual strong demand, the french government just did that to divide and rule.


Foelhe wrote:Some people say the government is run by reptilian aliens. I'm just saying.


Please avoid such phrasing which may suggest lack of respect.
Perhaps my wording was clumsy. Can you suggest a better way I should have written the sentence ?
Did you mean I should refer to some source ?
Please explain.

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Kit. » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:44 pm UTC

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:
Foelhe wrote:France didn't exist in a cultural vacuum. Marriage came from other places, and while I can't argue about which is "first" I do feel pretty comfortable saying that marriage has been both a religious and a legal thing for about 2500 years. Arguing over who had dibs now is just stupid.

Of course. That's why I wrote : "It's not surprising as in the past, religion provided rules, and civil laws appeared later when state and religion separated."

I don't quite follow you. France or not, but when we see monogamy in animals other than humans, should we also think that religion was involved at some point (and then got separated or what)?

Tyndmyr wrote:
mathmannix wrote:
jgh wrote:Weren't there any states were same-sex marriage wasn't technically illegal because it hadn't occured to the lawmakers to actually make it illegal? Same-sex marriage wasn't actually illegal in England&Wales until 1971 after two women presented themselves at a registry office and challenged the registrar to point out where in the 1949 Marriage Act it required the couple to be of different sexes. Some US states inherited their legal code from England&Wales, so it wouldn't surprise me to find a few that were still based on, eg, the 1753 Marriage Act.

Exactly, so whatever the next "thing" is (for argument's sake, let's say marriage between humans and humanoid robots that can legally be considered artificial "men" or "women") probably doesn't have any law against it, because it never occurred to lawmakers either.

People marrying not-people could well be it.

I wonder if it's legal anywhere to marry a corporation.

Mikeski
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Mikeski » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:51 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:
Mikeski wrote:All of the previous discussion was about marriage, though, so you're answering a different "what's next?" than what was asked.

Maybe I wasn't clear. My point was, "There's this huge issue right now, and it's been a huge issue for awhile, but I had no idea it was a huge issue until not that long ago. So there could be some huge issues I don't know about still."

Trans marriage is a done deal, you're right, but there may be some other kind of marriage that people have wanted for millennia, which I don't know about because it's never hit my social circle. Or there may not be. I'm just throwing out possibilities.

It's fairly simple to figure out, though. There are 7 billion-ish people out there, and the law either allows or disallows you to marry them. We've knocked down "race" and "sex"... so who else can't you marry? Already-married people, more-than-one-other people, too-closely-genetically-related-to-you people, too-closely-non-genetically-related-to-you people, too-young people, other unable-to-consent-to-the-contract people (persistent vegetative state, certain mental handicaps, etc.)... Make the whole list and you'll see what could be issues. Then you can ask around to see if they're issues or not. We know that poly-, incestuous, and pedo-/ephebo- have some proponents. I've not heard much about the marrying of vegetative people, but maybe I just don't hang out in the right places. (Even within the USA there are still splits on some of this... marriageable age isn't the same, and first-cousin marriage isn't consistent either.)

(We haven't considered anything else to be sentient "for millennia", so non-human things are all off your list already. A legal contract with an object or plant or non-sentient animal or non-physical concept isn't possible.)
Last edited by Mikeski on Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:52 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby MGitsfullofsheep » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:52 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
MGitsfullofsheep wrote:
Foelhe wrote:France didn't exist in a cultural vacuum. Marriage came from other places, and while I can't argue about which is "first" I do feel pretty comfortable saying that marriage has been both a religious and a legal thing for about 2500 years. Arguing over who had dibs now is just stupid.

Of course. That's why I wrote : "It's not surprising as in the past, religion provided rules, and civil laws appeared later when state and religion separated."

I don't quite follow you. France or not, but when we see monogamy in animals other than humans, should we also think that religion was involved at some point (and then got separated or what)?


No, I was referring to 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State. I believe that many countries did that transition, though some have not yet, we call them Theocracies.

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:52 pm UTC

jpers36 wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Even if they see themselves as broken sinners, they certainly believe that the Bible is morally good and correct. And so pointing out morally reprehensible things in the Bible is still a pretty valid criticism of fundamentalist Christianity.


To be sure that's a better argument than what Jackpot777's been presenting...


To paraphrase myself...

Jackpot777 wrote:"rape is wrong. Stop making it the victim's fault, at all, to any extent"


I hope you're not suggesting there's some wiggle room in "rape is wrong, and shouldn't be blamed on the victim".

Because that's my "argument". Really, you're saying that's even open for debate?

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Foelhe » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:54 pm UTC

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:I'm trying to participate in an interesting discussion and it implies not discussing endlessly every leaf of some tree-of-thought.


Okay. I'm talking about it because I think it's relevant. Since you were the one who brought up the religious-vs-legal confusion, I assumed you did as well. Apparently I was mistaken.

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Please avoid such phrasing which may suggest lack of respect.
Perhaps my wording was clumsy. Can you suggest a better way I should have written the sentence ?
Did you mean I should refer to some source ?
Please explain.


Fair enough, that was a bit snide. I've run into people who make vague statements, ("Is it possible my enemies are secretly terminators sent from the future?") and sometimes it comes off like they're trying to make accusations without being willing to back up those accusations, which I find annoying because I waste time shooting down an idea only for them to go, "Well, I didn't say I believed it." I'm willing to give you the benefit of a doubt and say you didn't mean it that way, but it's still not really something I can consider if I don't know why people are saying what they're saying. I'm not asking for a source, but explaining the logic would help.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Foelhe » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:57 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:It's fairly simple to figure out, though. There are 7 billion-ish people out there, and the law either allows or disallows you to marry them. We've knocked down "race" and "sex"... so who else can't you marry? Already-married people, more-than-one-other people, too-closely-genetically-related-to-you people, too-closely-non-genetically-related-to-you people, too-young people, other unable-to-consent-to-the-contract people (persistent vegetative state, certain mental handicaps, etc.)... Make the whole list and you'll see what could be issues. Then you can ask around to see if they're issues or not. We know that poly-, incestuous, and pedo-/ephebo- have some proponents. I've not heard much about the marrying of vegetative people, but maybe I just don't hang out in the right places. (Even within the USA there are still splits on some of this... marriageable age isn't the same, and first-cousin marriage isn't consistent either.)

(We haven't considered anything else to be sentient "for millennia", so non-human things are all off your list already. A legal contract with an object or plant or non-sentient animal or non-physical concept isn't possible.)


Fair enough. I try to be open to the idea that I might be completely wrong about something I think is obviously correct, so it's possible I hedge my bets a little more than makes sense.

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:04 pm UTC

jpers36 wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:100% my intent. What's political about saying "rape is wrong. Stop making it the victim's fault, at all, to any extent" and pointing out that religion does just that?


No one said "rape is wrong" is a political statement. Vortighast identified as someone who "believes marriage is a holy institution between a man and a woman established by God" and somehow you thought yourself qualified to extrapolate and judge their whole belief system from that. And from there, condemn all "religion" for supposedly condoning rape? Come on, man.

Jackpot777 wrote:So: specifically. What message, in part or in whole, did I miss?


The message of Christianity -- the good news of Jesus -- is emphatically not that followers of Christ have the moral high ground. The message is that everyone's broken and there's a way to be healed. You can agree or disagree with that, but if you're engaging with something other than this you're not engaging with the gospel.


2 Timothy 3:16 - "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" ...if the message of Christianity is emphatically not that followers of Christ have the moral high ground, why does its holy work say in no uncertain terms that its words (from the deity it claims created all) are good for training in the quality of being morally right (with absolutely no equivocation)?

Looks like you're telling me what something says, but the thing itself is saying the opposite.

Look: if anyone believes in something, and that something says it's the inerrant word of everything and that means all of it (not just bits. All of it) is not only beyond reproach but should be used in instructing others how to live their lives; then those people have to believe that everything from that source is without error instead of cherry picking from bits that don't look so good when times change. Otherwise, they're only kidding themselves when they say they believe it.

It either is what it says it is, and it's pretty clear in claiming to be the moral high ground, or it's not and people that deny it are denying its words. There's no middle ground. Either it is inerrant, in which case you denied the message and the messenger, or you're admitting it's not. So either believing in something because it's a "holy institution" and that it's "established by God" (as the other good poster did) means they absolutely do believe that, totally, and all that entails (in which case, rape in certain circumstances is sanctioned and approved) or they're lying to themselves and me.

I don't like people lying to me. What they do to themselves is their own affair. I didn't judge their whole belief system from anything. The belief system itself says it in the instruction book that defines the belief system. Don't go blaming me for something I don't subscribe to.
Last edited by Jackpot777 on Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:17 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Seli
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:01 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Seli » Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:10 pm UTC

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:
Seli wrote:That's not so obvious.
I've head that (in France at least) "Mariage" was religious first (catholic, to be precise), current civil laws just provided legal ground.
It's not surprising as in the past, religion provided rules, and civil laws appeared later when state and religion separated.
Now, if other religions use the word "Mariage" (and they do), that's okay with them, no need to invent many names.

The conclusion is clear to me: having civil union named for what it is is no problem (and no one in France seems to argue with that naming priority, actually people that are against mostly say "it's too late").


Unless I am mistaken in France civil marriage is the only one with legal status. And (like in my own Netherlands) it is actually not allowed to have a religious marriage without being the couple being recognized by the state (legal marriage) first.

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby MGitsfullofsheep » Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:19 pm UTC

Seli wrote:Unless I am mistaken in France civil marriage is the only one with legal status. And (like in my own Netherlands) it is actually not allowed to have a religious marriage without being the couple being recognized by the state (legal marriage) first.


Yes for both.

For the first point, since "legal status" covers "civil" things, that could not be different.
Though law could interfere, for any religion whether or not religious marriage allows same sex is now not a legal issue but a matter of the religious authority for that particular religion.

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby MGitsfullofsheep » Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:34 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:
MGitsfullofsheep wrote:I'm trying to participate in an interesting discussion and it implies not discussing endlessly every leaf of some tree-of-thought.


Okay. I'm talking about it because I think it's relevant. Since you were the one who brought up the religious-vs-legal confusion, I assumed you did as well. Apparently I was mistaken.


I like to understand other people's position in a constructive and respectful manner (whether I agree with them or not, sometimes we agree to something but for different reasons). Sometimes I change my mind, sometimes they change their mind, but that's not necessary.

Sorry for not having enough time to follow. English is not my native language which adds to the difficulty.

Foelhe wrote:
MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Please avoid such phrasing which may suggest lack of respect.
Perhaps my wording was clumsy. Can you suggest a better way I should have written the sentence ?
Did you mean I should refer to some source ?
Please explain.


Fair enough, that was a bit snide. I've run into people who make vague statements, ("Is it possible my enemies are secretly terminators sent from the future?") and sometimes it comes off like they're trying to make accusations without being willing to back up those accusations, which I find annoying because I waste time shooting down an idea only for them to go, "Well, I didn't say I believed it." I'm willing to give you the benefit of a doubt and say you didn't mean it that way, but it's still not really something I can consider if I don't know why people are saying what they're saying. I'm not asking for a source, but explaining the logic would help.


Wow long complicated sentences to me (not mocking just not my native language).

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Aligning the PACS with marriage would have provided full legal status.
Doing something different suggests the pro gay marriage camp wanted something else.
Some people say there was no actual strong demand, the french government just did that to divide and rule.


Well, from what I read, support among French people to provide a legal ground for same-sex union was fair.
But for ages French marriage law has been covering adoption. That means opening marriage to same sex automatically allows adoption by same-sex couples, for which support among French people is weaker.
So, the government had a choice.
There is a small gay association (2000 persons) who wanted the "marriage law", not "aligning PACS" option. Are they representative of all gay people ? Well, I know some gay people that supported their view and some that did not.
The government chose the second way.

If you want a reference or details, here's the first that I found with a quick Google search: http://www.mesdebats.com/politique/4001 ... ropre-camp It's in French.

Mr Hollande did not make explicit promise or explanation about adoption, so many french people felt betrayed, especially among people who thought that a union is okay, even naming it a marriage is okay, but adoption is not. Their number is the difference between proponents about union and union with adoption. I don't remember exact figures but it's not a negligible stance.

Whether or not dividing the French that was a plan by the government I don't know. Hence "I've heard...". Ok ?

The net result is that France was divided.
Now opinion polls about Mr Hollande are very low. Perhaps France unites against him ?
There was again a demonstration in Paris last Sunday, estimated between 70000 and 500000 persons.


Foelhe wrote:Fair enough, that was a bit snide. I've run into people who make vague statements, ("Is it possible my enemies are secretly terminators sent from the future?") and sometimes it comes off like they're trying to make accusations without being willing to back up those accusations, which I find annoying because I waste time shooting down an idea only for them to go, "Well, I didn't say I believed it." I'm willing to give you the benefit of a doubt and say you didn't mean it that way, but it's still not really something I can consider if I don't know why people are saying what they're saying. I'm not asking for a source, but explaining the logic would help.


Now I think I have clarified. No accusations, right ? No strings attached about what I'm saying.

My questions below about your first reaction remain. Please help.

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Some people say there was no actual strong demand, the french government just did that to divide and rule.


MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Perhaps my wording was clumsy. Can you suggest a better way I should have written the sentence ?
Did you mean I should refer to some source ?
Please explain.

Choboman
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:54 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Choboman » Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:40 pm UTC

It's my understanding (someone more knowledgable please correct me if wrong) that Mexico requires all married couples to be married by the state in a civil union. If they choose to then get married in a church as well it's their business, but has nothing to do with their legal status or any of the benefits associated with being married. So, in Mexico, you could be married in the eyes of the state but not according to your church, or vice versa. The overwhelming number of Mexican couples choose to have two ceremonies - by the state and the church - usually set up on the same day.

If the US had similar requirements, they could set whatever guidelines they chose for eligability (age-of-majority, competency, etc) for their official government union, and then if people wanted to get married by a church they'd just need to find one that agreed. Of course, this would annoy a large number of already-married people, who would be told that they needed a government form for them to keep the benefits that they'd already had for 20 years, and some people who would have objections to the government telling them that their church wedding wasn't good enough for the state, but in my mind it seems the lesser of the annoyances.
Last edited by Choboman on Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby mathmannix » Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:40 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
jpers36 wrote:Supposed self-evident absolute truths?
That forcing someone to live with their rapist is an abominable thing, and is indicative of a huge amount of related moral issues? Yeah... I feel comfortable with that one.

The law didn't force the woman to live with her rapist. The law forced the man to pay the bride price for a virgin. And let the father of the woman decide if she married him or not. (Yes, you can say the woman didn't have any say in the matter, but that wasn't an issue in that time and place and culture.) Whether or not the father allowed the marriage, the man still had to pay. And what father is going to let his daughter marry a rapist? (Or force his daughter to marry a rapist?) This law applied not only to the circumstance of a random rapist, but also to a teenage kid that hooked up with the daughter. The punishment/deterrent there is that hooking up has consequences - he has to marry her, and can never divorce her for any reason. This is not really a bad law.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Dr. Gamera » Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:47 pm UTC

operagost wrote:I'm wondering what a chart based on polygamy would look like.


From the same link as I posted before, a chart based on polygamy would start at 7% approval in 2003 when Gallup started polling about it, and rise to 14% approval by 2014.

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

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26763
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:59 pm UTC

Choboman wrote:It's my understanding (someone more knowledgable please correct me if wrong) that Mexico requires all married couples to be married by the state in a civil union. If they choose to then get married in a church as well it's their business, but has nothing to do with their legal status or any of the benefits associated with being married. So, in Mexico, you could be married in the eyes of the state but not according to your church, or vice versa. The overwhelming number of Mexican couples choose to have two ceremonies - by the state and the church - usually set up on the same day.

If the US had similar requirements, they could set whatever guidelines they chose for eligability (age-of-majority, competency, etc) for their official government union, and then if people wanted to get married by a church they'd just need to find one that agreed. Of course, this would annoy a large number of already-married people, who would be told that they needed a government form for them to keep the benefits that they'd already had for 20 years, and some people who would have objections to the government telling them that their church wedding wasn't good enough for the state, but in my mind it seems the lesser of the annoyances.
The US does have similar requirements. A church marriage has no legal standing if you don't also sign the necessary government documents. (Which is incidentally how gays and lesbians have been doing commitment ceremonies for generations in more progressive churches.)
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)

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Dr. Gamera » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:02 pm UTC

Choboman wrote:If the US had similar requirements, they could set whatever guidelines they chose for eligability (age-of-majority, competency, etc) for their official government union, and then if people wanted to get married by a church they'd just need to find one that agreed. Of course, this would annoy a large number of already-married people, who would be told that they needed a government form for them to keep the benefits that they'd already had for 20 years, and some people who would have objections to the government telling them that their church wedding wasn't good enough for the state, but in my mind it seems the lesser of the annoyances.


I think that either I'm misunderstanding you, or you're proposing the status quo. As far as I know, with one class of exceptions that I'll get to in a minute, already-married people in the USA already have a government form called a "marriage license". I'm not aware of any religious bodies that will perform marriages without a civil marriage license. It's the same marriage license for a religious wedding or a purely civil wedding, such as marriage by a justice of the peace.

The class of exceptions are couples united by a common-law marriage. But the issue with those couples isn't that their marriage ceremony was religious, it's that they were never ceremoniously married at all. Typically, such couples eventually get a court decision that gives them the rights and responsibilities of a conventionally married couple.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26763
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:04 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
jpers36 wrote:Supposed self-evident absolute truths?
That forcing someone to live with their rapist is an abominable thing, and is indicative of a huge amount of related moral issues? Yeah... I feel comfortable with that one.

The law didn't force the woman to live with her rapist. The law forced the man to pay the bride price for a virgin. And let the father of the woman decide if she married him or not. (Yes, you can say the woman didn't have any say in the matter, but that wasn't an issue in that time and place and culture.) Whether or not the father allowed the marriage, the man still had to pay. And what father is going to let his daughter marry a rapist? (Or force his daughter to marry a rapist?) This law applied not only to the circumstance of a random rapist, but also to a teenage kid that hooked up with the daughter. The punishment/deterrent there is that hooking up has consequences - he has to marry her, and can never divorce her for any reason. This is not really a bad law.
You can't have it both ways, dismissing one whole part of the problem by saying "those were different times" and then following that up with a rhetorical question about modern families.

You could argue that it wasn't really a bad law at that time, but arguing that it isn't really a bad law now is abhorrent and makes you look like a pretty despicable excuse for a human being, tbh.
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 9:04 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:
Kit. wrote:They did, but it doesn't work this way. Sometimes some males are just too desperate.

Speaking as a guy, I hate the idea that I'd totally rape someone if I got desperate enough.

I used to judge others as myself too; it took me quite a while to recognize how different one can be from me (or from my perception of me, actually, as I definitely do have some self-flattering illusions).

However, my experience shows me that sometimes they do things that I believe I would never consider doing myself, and I believe I have a good understanding of why they do it, and why using religion to tell them that what they do is "wrong" is not going to work, and other methods to prevent or reduce the harm they might do to others may need to be employed.

Foelhe wrote:I'm not an animal.

You know, you don't look like a plant from here.

However, it's quite far away from you, so I could be mistaken.

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:
Kit. wrote:
MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Of course. That's why I wrote : "It's not surprising as in the past, religion provided rules, and civil laws appeared later when state and religion separated."

I don't quite follow you. France or not, but when we see monogamy in animals other than humans, should we also think that religion was involved at some point (and then got separated or what)?


No, I was referring to 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State.

But is it where you got your "religion provided rules"?

Because as I can see it, it's not religion that provides the basis for the marriage relations. Otherwise we wouldn't see it in animals other than humans... unless we could also find a religion there.

mathmannix wrote:And what father is going to let his daughter marry a rapist? (Or force his daughter to marry a rapist?)

One that thinks that his daughter is now "spoiled" and is unlikely to find another husband. That father may do it.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26763
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:06 pm UTC

And of course that type of father made up the overwhelming majority in those days, and a distressingly large fraction even now.
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)

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:08 pm UTC

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:
Seli wrote:common sense dictates that legally recognized marriage seems to have the best papers to keep the term if one would choose to go that path. Especially since civil unions in many countries are being used as a lesser form of recognized relationship.


That's not so obvious.
I've head that (in France at least) "Mariage" was religious first (catholic, to be precise), current civil laws just provided legal ground.
It's not surprising as in the past, religion provided rules, and civil laws appeared later when state and religion separated.
Now, if other religions use the word "Mariage" (and they do), that's okay with them, no need to invent many names.

The conclusion is clear to me: having civil union named for what it is is no problem (and no one in France seems to argue with that naming priority, actually people that are against mostly say "it's too late").


Err, what's with the repeated use of "Mariage" in quotes? Is that the French spelling of the word, a new word meant to sound like marriage but spelled differently to make it distinct from "marriage," or did Seli accidentally leave one of the "r"s out when spelling "marriage" at some point, and now you're just being snarky and pedantic?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:21 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
jpers36 wrote:Supposed self-evident absolute truths?
That forcing someone to live with their rapist is an abominable thing, and is indicative of a huge amount of related moral issues? Yeah... I feel comfortable with that one.

The law didn't force the woman to live with her rapist. The law forced the man to pay the bride price for a virgin. And let the father of the woman decide if she married him or not. (Yes, you can say the woman didn't have any say in the matter, but that wasn't an issue in that time and place and culture.) Whether or not the father allowed the marriage, the man still had to pay. And what father is going to let his daughter marry a rapist? (Or force his daughter to marry a rapist?) This law applied not only to the circumstance of a random rapist, but also to a teenage kid that hooked up with the daughter. The punishment/deterrent there is that hooking up has consequences - he has to marry her, and can never divorce her for any reason. This is not really a bad law.
You're of course also forgetting that this suggests the only justice we need mete out upon rapists is having them pay the fathers the equivalent cost of their child. That's, as far as I feel, pretty scummy.

You're of course further forgetting that, you know, kids be kids, and having two teens fooling around in the ye olde barn or whatever is TOTALLY a sign that both or either of them should be forever and permanently bound to one another for the purposes of child rearing.

Yes. I am more than comfortable saying the morality presented in the bible is absolutely wretched. And it requires so very effort to find further examples of wretchedness. Attempting to white wash this shit or pull a 'nuh uh, it's a product of the times and it worked then' is extraordinarily weak, given what little evidence you have to support the notion that biblical law HELPED a given culture, and indeed, how many positive changes have been sociologically demonstrated when morality gets updated.

You're doing the equivalent of saying "Well this is my favorite tool, so I need to keep using it, even though it's a broken hammer, and I actually need a saw".
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:24 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:But is it where you got your "religion provided rules"?

Because as I can see it, it's not religion that provides the basis for the marriage relations. Otherwise we wouldn't see it in animals other than humans... unless we could also find a religion there.


As I can see it, basis does not mean the same thing as rules, which is why this argument is completely invalid. Non-lethal, ritualistic combat to assert dominance between males has a basis in nature--that would be the most logical explanation for why we see it in everything from stag beetles to moose.

However, various human societies have rules governing such combat that are provided by a number of institutions that you can't simply write off as part of "nature." That's why when you look at most lower animals engaged in such practices, there aren't generally many "rules" beyond "1) use every tool biology gave me to win, and 2) if I'm clearly beating the other guy and he backs off, I probably shouldn't chase after him in order to finish off," whereas in humans you have such varied systems

Nature and natural selection drives the biological urge to procreate. In many environments, natural selection favors those that mate long-term--that is the biological "basis" you mentioned. You can also argue that as animals, we also have nature to thank for the "basis" of our institution of marriage.

However, it would be foolish to conflate providing a basis, and providing the actual rules governing marriage. In different societies, we have seen monogamy and polygamy develop. If you look more closely, you would see that even the umbrella term "polygamy" encompasses numerous different systems of rules. The Chinese system of having a senior wife, and multiple, subordinate concubines whose children are also recognized as legitimate certainly doesn't follow the same set of rules as polygamy in the Church of Latter Day Saints, or in certain Arab cultures. Even within what we call "Christianity," different sects impose different rules on whether and how monogamous, heterosexual marriages are permitted to end. Between more matriarchal and more patriarchy societies, the rules governing heterosexual marriages between two people would vary as well to reflect the different nominal balance of power.

If we accept your argument that providing a basis is equivalent to providing the rules, then the evidence seems to show that there are radical biological differences between Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Arabs, Jews, and I can't even imagine what your argument would have to say about a Coptic Christian who converts to Judaism and moves to Ming Dynasty China.

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby MGitsfullofsheep » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:27 pm UTC

Netreker0 wrote:
MGitsfullofsheep wrote:The conclusion is clear to me: having civil union named for what it is is no problem (and no one in France seems to argue with that naming priority, actually people that are against mostly say "it's too late").


Err, what's with the repeated use of "Mariage" in quotes? Is that the French spelling of the word, a new word meant to sound like marriage but spelled differently to make it distinct from "marriage," or did Seli accidentally leave one of the "r"s out when spelling "marriage" at some point, and now you're just being snarky and pedantic?


Wow, people seem to easily believe others are pedantic. Why so ?

It's easy to check (go to Wikipedia for example and see the interlanguage links on the left column) that "Mariage" is the french word.
I used that word because of the french context being explained (also anticipating, see my other posts, that I would have to explain that french "Mariage" includes adoption while American "Marriage" does not, since it's a major point heating France for the last year and a half).
I wrote it in quotes to make the specific meaning stand out and make sure no one takes that for a typo.

Thanks for asking.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5436
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:33 pm UTC

armandoalvarez wrote:There aren't that many people who aren't romantically involved who want a lifelong legal commitment to each other to justify replacing marriage with an "incorporation of household" status.

Who said anything about lifelong? Marriage isn't lifelong. Divorce exists. You can enter into and exit from marriage with relative ease (compared to older times). Also, "incorporation of household" is only to handle one thing that marriage handles: a joint economic status for tax purposes (basically, to allow for filing of joint taxes). It has nothing to do with wills, living wills, powers of attorney, or anything like that. It also has nothing to do with children.

Honest question: say for example that I have no living family and am not married or even in a romantic relationship, maybe I'm completely asexual and never plan to be in one. But I've got a best buddy from childhood who I want to be able to visit me in the hospital when I'm sick and to whom I want to entrust decisions about my life in case I'm not conscious to make them. Can I sign something to grant him that power now? If not, I should be able to. That procedure should also suffice for the same purposes for gay couples. And for straight couples. What does marriage have to do with any of that? That's a thing that could easily apply between people with no romantic relation whatsoever; why do we need different versions of it for romantic relations vs nonromantic relations, much less different versions between heterosexual and homosexual romantic relations?

Basically everything that legal marriage does could conceivably be desirable for unmarried, not-even-romantically-involved people too, and should be available to them. And if those things are available for such people, they should suffice just as well for romantically-involved people too, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. If a lot of people frequently want a lot of those things all together at once, then bundles of such legal documents should be a common occurrence: if two people want a traditional marriage arrangement, they can go sign a standardized concatenation of living wills, powers of attorney, household incorporation, etc etc etc, just as easily as they could go sign a marriage contract. The lawyers / legal document services / etc that offer such bundles can even market them as "marriage bundles", because they're targeting people who are getting (socially) married. But the actual laws underlying them don't need to have anything to do with romance whatsoever, and so should not be intrinsically connected to the concept of marriage.

The only legal things that should have any tangential relation to romance are reproductive rights and responsibilities, that is to say, what rights and responsibilities parents have to their children and co-parents. But already people can and do have kids outside of marriage, and those rights and responsibilities to their children and co-parents should and do still apply even in those cases; it's not like you have to sign a document to become legally someone's babydaddy/babymomma, owe or be owed child support money, have custody or visitation rights, etc.

CBusAlex wrote:This seems like a solution in search of a problem. If the standard bundle of rights and responsibilities currently associated with marriage were so terrible, you'd see more opposite-sex couples clamoring for civil unions then same-sex couples clamoring for marriage.

A civil union is just a marriage by another name, and has all the same problems I'm criticizing of marriage. Also note that my criticism is not a "look, lots of people are being oppressed by this marriage thing, we have to get rid of it!" type of criticism, it's a "this is a backwards and stupid way of designing something to do what this does, and there's lots of edge cases that it doesn't serve well, and of course this one big hot-button issue we're talking about that wouldn't exist if this design wasn't so terrible in the first place".
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 9:42 pm UTC

Netreker0 wrote:
Kit. wrote:But is it where you got your "religion provided rules"?

Because as I can see it, it's not religion that provides the basis for the marriage relations. Otherwise we wouldn't see it in animals other than humans... unless we could also find a religion there.

As I can see it, basis does not mean the same thing as rules,

Indeed. The whole point of this comic is that rules are changeable.

The basis isn't (or at least not that easily).

Netreker0 wrote:which is why this argument is completely invalid.

Nope.

The argument asks to look at what really matters to the individuals involved, and use that (and not some tangential stuff coming from sacraments or legalese) to decide how we would like to change the rules.

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby cutterx2202 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:45 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote: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.
Please don't fall prey to pop culture and misuse the term homophobe to mean disagreement.

Even at 10% it seems like a bad business decision for no gain, but whatever. Not the point of the thread, and not my place to dictate decisions. I WA just curious I anyone had more insight.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby PolakoVoador » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:55 pm UTC

cutterx2202 wrote:
gmalivuk wrote: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.
Please don't fall prey to pop culture and misuse the term homophobe to mean disagreement.

Even at 10% it seems like a bad business decision for no gain, but whatever. Not the point of the thread, and not my place to dictate decisions. I WA just curious I anyone had more insight.


So, what are you suggesting we call a position which claims for different (lesser) rights for LGBT population?

speising
Posts: 2353
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby speising » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:56 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
mathmannix wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
jpers36 wrote:Supposed self-evident absolute truths?
That forcing someone to live with their rapist is an abominable thing, and is indicative of a huge amount of related moral issues? Yeah... I feel comfortable with that one.

The law didn't force the woman to live with her rapist. The law forced the man to pay the bride price for a virgin. And let the father of the woman decide if she married him or not. (Yes, you can say the woman didn't have any say in the matter, but that wasn't an issue in that time and place and culture.) Whether or not the father allowed the marriage, the man still had to pay. And what father is going to let his daughter marry a rapist? (Or force his daughter to marry a rapist?) This law applied not only to the circumstance of a random rapist, but also to a teenage kid that hooked up with the daughter. The punishment/deterrent there is that hooking up has consequences - he has to marry her, and can never divorce her for any reason. This is not really a bad law.
You're of course also forgetting that this suggests the only justice we need mete out upon rapists is having them pay the fathers the equivalent cost of their child. That's, as far as I feel, pretty scummy.

You're of course further forgetting that, you know, kids be kids, and having two teens fooling around in the ye olde barn or whatever is TOTALLY a sign that both or either of them should be forever and permanently bound to one another for the purposes of child rearing.

Yes. I am more than comfortable saying the morality presented in the bible is absolutely wretched. And it requires so very effort to find further examples of wretchedness. Attempting to white wash this shit or pull a 'nuh uh, it's a product of the times and it worked then' is extraordinarily weak, given what little evidence you have to support the notion that biblical law HELPED a given culture, and indeed, how many positive changes have been sociologically demonstrated when morality gets updated.

You're doing the equivalent of saying "Well this is my favorite tool, so I need to keep using it, even though it's a broken hammer, and I actually need a saw".


you have to see those ancient laws in context. if the alternative is that the girl is stoned to death because she's a slut, then i'd say this law is an improvement.

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

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby cutterx2202 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:57 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
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.

Thanks for the reply and good analysis. I'd agree I didn't feel the same as if it were a rant.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3629
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:01 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:2 Timothy 3:16 - "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" ...if the message of Christianity is emphatically not that followers of Christ have the moral high ground, why does its holy work say in no uncertain terms that its words (from the deity it claims created all) are good for training in the quality of being morally right (with absolutely no equivocation)?

Looks like you're telling me what something says, but the thing itself is saying the opposite.

Look: if anyone believes in something, and that something says it's the inerrant word of everything and that means all of it (not just bits. All of it) is not only beyond reproach but should be used in instructing others how to live their lives; then those people have to believe that everything from that source is without error instead of cherry picking from bits that don't look so good when times change. Otherwise, they're only kidding themselves when they say they believe it.

It either is what it says it is, and it's pretty clear in claiming to be the moral high ground, or it's not and people that deny it are denying its words. There's no middle ground. Either it is inerrant, in which case you denied the message and the messenger, or you're admitting it's not. So either believing in something because it's a "holy institution" and that it's "established by God" (as the other good poster did) means they absolutely do believe that, totally, and all that entails (in which case, rape in certain circumstances is sanctioned and approved) or they're lying to themselves and me.

I don't like people lying to me. What they do to themselves is their own affair. I didn't judge their whole belief system from anything. The belief system itself says it in the instruction book that defines the belief system. Don't go blaming me for something I don't subscribe to.


Good teaching material =/= the literal and absolute truth. I know there are some people who think that each of Jesus' parables are factual reports of individual case studies. I say that it's irrelevant whether that particular combination of events happened to a particular individual - the stories are still valuable "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness". Whether there ever actually was a traveler who was mugged by bandits, left by the roadside, passed by by the great and good, but then helped by one of them in the specific way described, or not, the message - that you shouldn't assume you know who the good guys are just based on social class, or race, or profession, or how many awards they have, and that help can come from the unlikeliest places - that message is still worth considering, and that's all that verse you quote says. Not that every word of scripture is literal truth, but that all of it is worth studying.

Izawwlgood wrote:Yes. I am more than comfortable saying the morality presented in the bible is absolutely wretched. And it requires so very effort to find further examples of wretchedness. Attempting to white wash this shit or pull a 'nuh uh, it's a product of the times and it worked then' is extraordinarily weak, given what little evidence you have to support the notion that biblical law HELPED a given culture, and indeed, how many positive changes have been sociologically demonstrated when morality gets updated.

You're doing the equivalent of saying "Well this is my favorite tool, so I need to keep using it, even though it's a broken hammer, and I actually need a saw".


By your logic, Abraham Lincoln's morality was absolutely wretched - all he did was free the slaves, not give them equal rights, and arguing that it was a big step forward is extraordinarily weak...

I haven't studied the archaeological evidence, but what I've heard reported by those who have is that biblical morality was generally an improvement over the morality that it replaced (which shouldn't really be either contentious nor surprising considering that it did successfully replace it). Sure, it's full of things we'd regard as morally dubious at best, so we should probably think carefully before blindly accepting any particular aspect, but the underlying ideas are still applicable today - most cultures take the approach that a man who gets a woman pregnant (with or without her enthusiastic consent) should have some responsibility for the child...

dg61
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby dg61 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:03 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:
vortighast 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.


Yea, except virtually all authorities state(and have stated pretty much since the Talmudic period) that A) this means "If the woman wants him to marry her he cannot say no" and B) that the woman is not and cannot be obligated to marry him*(although if she refuses to marry him and says "never, ever, ever get within a half-mile of me" she can still legally claim damages from him). This is not a fringe or liberal or "religious people copping out' interpretation; it is the basic legal consensus and has been for an extremely long time. So I would certainly say the rabbis of the Talmud were quite aware that no, we do not want women to be required to marry their rapist and stated that the law should not be read as requiring such.

Generally, Jewish perspectives on marriage are interesting in that marriage is treated as a positive and god-given institution, but it's not a "sacrament"(which doesn't exist as a category in Judaism) but also a basic legal contract in which a husband and a wife undertake certain stipulated responsibilities(living together harmoniously, providing financial support, etc). Getting married as an act entails religious blessings but also the signing of a ketubah(marriage contract) in which these responsibilities are agreed to before witnesses.

*There is absolutely no circumstance I am aware of in halakha where a woman can be legally obligated to marry someone she does not wish to marry period.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mscha and 105 guests