Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional

[Ag3ma]

Marriages are consummated by the action of sexual intercourse. It is tradition that a marriage isn't real until that happens. It is the teachings of the religion I belong to that a married couple must at minimum be open to having children or their marriage is invalid, as that is what the vocation of marriage is.

But that's never been what marriage has just been about in practice. In many cases, marriage was about money, sociopolitical alliance, or just comfort and companionship.

To make this sort of point, two 50-year-olds might marry: the clock has long since ticked past their ability to conceive, but they want to settle in together for the remainder of their lives. And yet the church will marry them!

It's not a matter of justification, it's a statement of historical fact: Christians decided what the word marriage means. Now you want it to mean something different.

That's not how it works.

There is an overall concept of marriage in human understanding - and these are very broad. There are numerous words such as "marriage" that exist to describe this concept: these words fluctuate in spelling, pronunciation, and the precise details of concept that they are understood to represent. These concepts and words are held by individuals and, in sum, by general society. It is more accurate to say that at one time Christianity, as the dominant ideology of the day in certain places, had the greatest influence over the common understanding of what marriage (the concept) was in those places. But Christianity did not create the concept or the word, and it certainly does not "own" either. General society has always and still does determine what words mean.

 

[tstorm823]

Christians can "decide" a lot of things, it's the world's prerogative to answer "fuck you" and decide otherwise.

If that's your prerogative, at least you're being honest. You are deciding otherwise and hostile to the views you are rejecting, not pretending everything is the same as it ever was and gaslighting about it.

A lot of it was property rights, usually through the the father’s lineage. Some of it was also ensuring a continuation of power - see the Windsors for a modern example of that - through a single family line. Sometimes it was also a good way to offload an extraneous daughter (or rarely a son) to take the burden off one household and transfer it to another. Oh, also it was used to secure alliances among nobles or even nations.

All of that is related to having children. Even the securing of alliances, the reason they are so secured is because of the production of shared blood relatives between those in power.

Practical reality of the drift and spread of language means that marriage’s most basic meaning is that of a formal union between two separate entities.

And if you want to say the language has drifted to that, you're not going to be accusing pthose using the traditional meaning of inventing new requirements post hoc to justify discrimination.

Now if the Catholic Church wishes to say that for a marriage to be Catholic in nature it must follow certain stipulations then they may fill their boots. What they do not get to do is dictate to secular (on paper at least), representative governments whom else may engage in the non-Catholic version thereof.

That's not what this argument is about though. We aren't arguing about the Catholic Church dictating secular institutions, we are arguing about businesses being mandated by law to participate in events based on specific definitions. We are well beyond the argument of banning, and stepped into the realm of "everything not forbidden is compulsory", which the Supreme Court has thankfully consistently rejected.

 

[tstorm823]

But that's never been what marriage has just been about in practice. In many cases, marriage was about money, sociopolitical alliance, or just comfort and companionship.

To make this sort of point, two 50-year-olds might marry: the clock has long since ticked past their ability to conceive, but they want to settle in together for the remainder of their lives. And yet the church will marry them!

It's tough to say no there when the origin story of John the Baptist is an older couple beyond the age of fertility miraculously conceiving. That being said, I certainly have met some older couples who decline to marry knowing there aren't children in their future.

General society has always and still does determine what words mean.

And you would like to determine them in such a way as to erase the Christian influence in them. You're allowed to be honest about that. BC and AD aren't getting phased out by accident.

 

[Ag3ma]

And you would like to determine them in such a way as to erase the Christian influence in them. You're allowed to be honest about that. BC and AD aren't getting phased out by accident.

I don't necessarily want to erase Christianity from marriage, depending on what that means.

I believe marriage is determined by wider society via the state, and can encompass a broad range of factors. Various Christian ideals can sit within that broader scope because Christianity is part of society and thus merits represention. But Christian representation within the concept of marriage is not the same as a privileged right for Christianity to determine what marriage is for everyone. The grip of Christianity on Western society is in decline across many areas, and this will inevitably result in a gradual decline of Christian terms, ideas and representation in wider society. I don't see this as "erasure":

AD and BC are not being phased out. Although for a while 90s-2000s particularly in some fields use of CE and BCE grew considerably, this growth has ceased. BC is not problematic, but AD is: it implies non-Christians praise Jesus. CE of course has existed for centuries: Jews in particular have tended to use it and other alternatives for this reason.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

And you would like to determine them in such a way as to erase the Christian influence in them. You're allowed to be honest about that. BC and AD aren't getting phased out by accident.

You have this weird mindset that your religion is responsible for all the good things in the world and that we all owe it fealty and recognition.

 

[Silvanus]

Marriages are consummated by the action of sexual intercourse. It is tradition that a marriage isn't real until that happens. It is the teachings of the religion I belong to that a married couple must at minimum be open to having children or their marriage is invalid, as that is what the vocation of marriage is. Marriage is to support children, current or future.

Why on earth should your traditions and your understanding of marriage matter to anyone who doesn't voluntarily follow them? I don't give a toss about any of this.

You see marriage that way. That has exactly as much moral standing or relevance to me as some other fruitcake claiming their tradition only acknowledges marriages within a certain race, and then using that as a justification to deny services at the business they run.

The purpose of a thing is not a smokescreen. Tell me, why do you think marriage exists at all? What historical purpose, what evolutionary force do you think made this sort of institution appear throughout human history? You're taking an "it is what it is!" attitude, but you can't possibly believe marriage is just something the exists without a purpose.

Depending on the culture, various reasons-- romantic bonds, financial stability, sometimes procreation. Historically, marriage or a marriage-analogous bond has existed long before Christianity, and has almost always encompassed couples who did not procreate.

 

[tstorm823]

You have this weird mindset that your religion is responsible for all the good things in the world and that we all owe it fealty and recognition.

I have the accurate mindset that my religion is responsible for many, many good things in the world, and your worldview is wrong if you treat it as some destructive force in history.

I don't give a toss about any of this.

Then don't respond to it.

Historically, marriage or a marriage-analogous bond has existed long before Christianity, and has almost always encompassed couples who did not procreate.

Do you have any single example of a historical cultural institution called or comparable to marriage that was not centered on childbearing?

 

[Ag3ma]

Do you have any single example of a historical cultural institution called or comparable to marriage that was not centered on childbearing?

I would suggest that marriage is centred around family rather than children. Children are a subset of family, and whilst arguably the most important part of family pertaining to marriage, not actually required such that one should say marriage is centred around child-rearing itself.

 

[CaitSeith]

And you would like to determine them in such a way as to erase the Christian influence in them.

Maybe you should consult with your priest about if that really matters.

 

[tstorm823]

I would suggest that marriage is centred around family rather than children. Children are a subset of family, and whilst arguably the most important part of family pertaining to marriage, not actually required such that one should say marriage is centred around child-rearing itself.

You live in a country where the state religion separated from the Catholic Church specifically so that the King could take on new wives in pursuit of a son. Your marriage traditions are so centered around child-rearing that one man's desire for offspring (through divorce) inspired a theological schism that defined centuries of history for at minimum England, Ireland, and eventually the United States.

 

[Elijin]

I have the accurate mindset that my religion is responsible for many, many good things in the world, and your worldview is wrong if you treat it as some destructive force in history.

Your worldview is literally wrong if you don't think Christianity was a destructive force in history.

Which isn't to say no good came from it, but denying it as a destructive force in history is some revisionist bullshit at best.

 

[tstorm823]

Your worldview is literally wrong if you don't think Christianity was a destructive force in history.

Which isn't to say no good came from it, but denying it as a destructive force in history is some revisionist bullshit at best.

The history you believe in is the revision.

 

[Silvanus]

Then don't respond to it.

Very mature.

I give a toss about our discussion. I mean I don't have any compelling reason to care about your traditions especially, and no reason to afford them any more consideration than anyone else's.

Do you have any single example of a historical cultural institution called or comparable to marriage that was not centered on childbearing?

There's quite a few cases to consider. For the Anglo-Saxons and first-century Romans, as well as quite a few other cultures, marriages were primarily centred on financial, professional or political alliance, and it was common for a man not to procreate with his wife, and/or to procreate with other women. Same-sex marriages were recognised in some cases in Rome and some other ancient cultures-- and some same-sex marriages were even recognised by the early Orthodox Christian churches in Greece. Marriage to spirits even existed in at least one culture. Then we have some early Jewish groups recognising marriages in advanced age (even 90+), and giving arguments that infertility was not grounds for divorce.

But really, we can also simply look to the fact that for centuries upon centuries, marriage has not been closed to the infertile, or those past menopause.

...in fact, even the most common Christian wedding service delivered today (at least in my country) doesn't mention children. It does say "forsaking all others" and "as long as you both shall live", though-- explicitly saying that even if infertility comes up later, the marriage should stick, and you shouldn't turn to others.

 

[Trunkage]

The history you believe in is the revision.

I mean, I would totally agree with Elijin if the word Christian was removed and church (as in the institutions like Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox leadership et al) was put in its place (you can replace term church with whatever you see fit)

Same with every religion. Most high leadership (i.e. the line anything higher than around Archbishop) is only there to further thier own goals, not to do something positive for soceity or their religion. They are very willing to throw their own religion and people under a bus if it helps them personally. Dems and the GOP are the same, as well as CEOs

The problem is the system, not the individual people inside who arent on top. Looking at the Bible, I would say that Jesus had similar because he was against most Jewish leadership, seeing them as corrupt

 

[tstorm823]

Very mature.

I give a toss about our discussion. I mean I don't have any compelling reason to care about your traditions especially, and no reason to afford them any more consideration than anyone else's.

You can italicize all you want, you responded to my comment to a different user with how little you care. You deserve the sass.

There's quite a few cases to consider. For the Anglo-Saxons and first-century Romans, as well as quite a few other cultures, marriages were primarily centred on financial, professional or political alliance, and it was common for a man not to procreate with his wife, and/or to procreate with other women. Same-sex marriages were recognised in some cases in Rome and some other ancient cultures-- and some same-sex marriages were even recognised by the early Orthodox Christian churches in Greece. Marriage to spirits even existed in at least one culture. Then we have some early Jewish groups recognising marriages in advanced age (even 90+), and giving arguments that infertility was not grounds for divorce.

But really, we can also simply look to the fact that for centuries upon centuries, marriage has not been closed to the infertile, or those past menopause.

...in fact, even the most common Christian wedding service delivered today (at least in my country) doesn't mention children. It does say "forsaking all others" and "as long as you both shall live", though-- explicitly saying that even if infertility comes up later, the marriage should stick, and you shouldn't turn to others.

Sounds like those are still all centered around children (setting aside the part about early Orthodox same-sex marriages, cause that's just complete nonsense.)

If you have to address the exception of reaching infertility without offspring, what does that indicate the rule is? If marriage isn't about children, why are people even asking that question?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

And there's the Obergefell challenge. At least one person on this forum is gonna owe me money

Texas judge who doesn’t want to perform gay marriage ceremonies hopes web designer’s Supreme Court case helps her fight

McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley filed a lawsuit after a state agency warned her about refusing to marry gay couples. She hopes a recent U.S. Supreme Court case about religious freedom helps her cause.

www.texastribune.org

 

[Trunkage]

You know, there is written evidence of marriages before the existence of the Xia dynasty but Christians, for some reason, get to decide what a marriage is?

And WE have the distrorted version of history?

And people wonder why Christians are liked very much....

 

[Silvanus]

You can italicize all you want, you responded to my comment to a different user with how little you care. You deserve the sass.

Not with how little I care about the discussion.

You are arguing that your traditions should dictate legal protections and the services that others are allowed access to. It is entirely justified and relevant to say your traditions are not relevant to my life.

Sounds like those are still all centered around children

Then you have misread somehow.

The Real Marriage Revolution | Origins

The demand that society legally recognize same-sex marriages is often called revolutionary. And so it is, but not in the way most people assume. The reason it is revolutionary is not because traditional marriage has always been "one man/one woman." Nor is there anything historically...

origins.osu.edu

In China and the Sudan, when two sets of parents wanted to forge closer family ties through marriage, but no living spouse was available, they sometimes married off a child to the "ghost" of a dead son or daughter of the other family. Among the Bella Coola and Kwakiutl native societies of the Pacific Northwest, when two families wished to establish the trading ties that went with becoming in-laws but didn't have two sets of marriageable children available, they might draw up a marriage contract between a son or daughter and a dog belonging to the desired in-laws.

There are at least 30 societies in Africa where a woman could traditionally marry another woman and be counted as a "female husband." In fact, among the Lovedu, the queen was required to marry a woman rather than a man. In these marriages, any children that the wife brought to the marriage or bore within it were counted as part of the descent line of the female husband.

Numerous African and Native American societies have recognized male-male marriages.

^ male-male, female-female, human-ghost and human-dog marriages existing in traditions in the non-Christian world.

If you have to address the exception of reaching infertility without offspring, what does that indicate the rule is? If marriage isn't about children, why are people even asking that question?

??? What a bizarre quibble, asking why it came up.

Some people tried to divorce their wives due to infertility. They took it to early Rabbinical authorities to consider. The religious authorities concluded that marriages are valid regardless of the ability to conceive.

 

[Hawki]

...how the heck did we get from AA to what is and isn't marriage? 0_0

 

[Gordon_4]

...how the heck did we get from AA to what is and isn't marriage? 0_0