Another Gay Rant

[bum]

Just a question, why must you get married? Purely through out time it has been man and women, with vowels to suit. Man has male sex organs and women have female. These fit together and we can create more human beings. We both have different builds that together can work together.

I'm staunchly pro-same sex marriage but I do believe it is of equal importance that in granting long overdue rights to one section of the community we don't step on the rights of others. Much though it pains me to say it - the rights of the religious community to continue their teachings and practices must not be man-handled in the process (if you'll allow me to shoe-horn that pun in). In that light I'll not address a great many issues I have with your post, Drew, but I will ask you one serious question and I hope you find the time to answer it in kind:

Why are you talking about marriage like it is a biological function?

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Marriage

How many know that marriage was originally a union of 2 families via the offspring, in order to create a larger entity or "Company

The union ( marriage ) was proclaimed in public and recorded by a celebrant

The Church actually refused to have marriage ceremonies held within the church, as they saw this as not a religious ceremony

Marriage is actually a union of people

 

[Hatchy]

My wife didn't change her name after marriage. Are we less married? I'm quite certain we are even though we didn't have vowels to suit. We preferred consonants.

We used what I feel was an appropriate mix of vowels & consonants. I feel that vowels are very important, lots of my favourite words wouldn't exist without them.

 

[goomboogo]

We used what I feel was an appropriate mix of vowels & consonants. I feel that vowels are very important, lots of my favourite words wouldn't exist without them.

Jp, jp nd jp.

 

[Hatchy]

Jp, jp nd jp.

I can't disagree with you, mainly because I've got no idea what that means.

 

[manticle]

I'm staunchly pro-same sex marriage but I do believe it is of equal importance that in granting long overdue rights to one section of the community we don't step on the rights of others. Much though it pains me to say it - the rights of the religious community to continue their teachings and practices must not be man-handled in the process (if you'll allow me to shoe-horn that pun in).

I agree with this. Various organisations should have the right to hold true to things that make them who they are. That includes membership. As irrelevant as religious organisations are to my life, I believe in their right to set their own ground rules. However that's each organisation and if someone wants to start an organisation that affiliates itself with lutheranism (eg) and allow marriage between humans regardless of gender and sexuality then I have no problem with that either.

I'm not suggesting all churches should be forced to accept the onus to ceremonialise marriage that works against their fundamental beliefs. The more they want to distance themselves from contemporary society, the less relevant they become anyway but that's not the point. I'd be happy for a National socialist white supremacist society to set their own ground rules, provided they paid for and maintained the land on which they set up their community and stayed the **** away from anywhere near me. Cleft palates and haemophilia would no doubt become their friends in a generation or two anyway. As long as these organisations have willing participants in whatever it is they believe then good luck to them.

However marriage is not the exclusive domain of churches or religious bodies. Marriage as a legal state should be recognised between all willing parties, religious organisations should be able to set their own guidelines and people who disagree with said guidelines should have (and do as far as I understand) the right to set up alternate bodies with their own guidelines.

 

[warra48]

The more they want to distance themselves from contemporary society, the less relevant they become anyway but that's not the point.

Your argument is that anyone who wants to distance themselves from contemporary society becomes irrelevant?
Your argument is one put forward quite frequently by various pressure or minority groups to justify their objectives, and to silence objections or counter arguments.
However, by what rule of logic can it be proposed that comtemporary society always has things correct?
There are numerous instances throughout history where contemporary society had it wrong.
For example, contemporary society in 1930s Germany moved steadily towards National Socialism (Nazism).
Distancing from that might just have been a good thing.

I'm getting rather tired of lots of threads on this forum which have absolutely no relevance in any way shape or form to home brewing.
I'm not getting into an argument about the merits or otherwise of the debate put forward in the original post.

 

[manticle]

Irrelevant to that specific, contemporary society, yes. Seems self explanatory.

I'm not necessarily making a judgement on that irrelevance - as you suggest, in some circumstances it's a good thing. I certainly made no statement in regards to anything being correct one way or the other. There are many parts of me as a reasonably young man that are vastly distant from certain aspects of contemporary society.

As for relevance to homebrewing - off topic section means it's off topic.

Additionally my argument is not anything like the argument put forward by pressure groups etc - I'm arguing, quite strongly for all groups to have a right to exist and set their own ground rules, on their own terms provided it's within the current legal framework and on their own premises, maintained at their own expense. The groups you're talking of presumably argue against the existence of any group opposed to their ideology. I'm not.

 

[bum]

Your argument is that anyone who wants to distance themselves from contemporary society becomes irrelevant?
However, by what rule of logic can it be proposed that comtemporary society always has things correct?
There are numerous instances throughout history where contemporary society had it wrong.

Good points, well made.

I'm getting rather tired of lots of threads on this forum which have absolutely no relevance in any way shape or form to home brewing.

In Off Topic? :huh:

Just wanting to clarify an earlier point of mine - when I said "Much though it pains me to say it - the rights of the religious community to continue their teachings and practices must not be man-handled in the process" the "pain" was in the specific context of this issue and does not reflect my feelings on religion in general. While I have no faith I do have great respect for the faithful and acknowledge that religion has the ability to be of more help to people than it does to harm.

This is all getting very delicate now, innit?

 

[petesbrew]

This is the best thread to read, honestly. Especially the fuel fed by Drew.

I honestly have no great input to add to this debate, as I honestly think what goes on between another couple (whatever build you may be) is their own business. I mean if you want to look at it from a "taking away from the sacredness(?) of marriage" point of view compared to "I just ripped 30gb of downloaded movies WOOOOO!" in God's eyes I'm pretty sure a sin's a sin right? One of my old church mates is a now UCA Minister. I'll ask him for his opinion when I see him next.

I have to wonder, Brad, you're into brewing, and you've got HWMBO to help out, so 1. What Country? 2. What was the drinks list like at the reception, and 3. (hugely depending on #2) Why weren't we all invited?
Pete

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

This is the best thread to read, honestly. Especially the fuel fed by Drew.


I have to wonder, Brad, you're into brewing, and you've got HWMBO to help out, so 1. What Country? 2. What was the drinks list like at the reception, and 3. (hugely depending on #2) Why weren't we all invited?
Pete

Yes ... How come we where not invited to drink what ever was on the drinks lists...Jeeezus... who cares who is getting married, its all about the beer

 

[petesbrew]

I was at a wedding a couple of weeks ago, and they didn't even top up glasses before toasts. Now if anything is work arguing about, IT'S THAT!!!
Poor form indeed.

 

[Tanga]

I'm getting rather tired of lots of threads on this forum which have absolutely no relevance in any way shape or form to home brewing.
I'm not getting into an argument about the merits or otherwise of the debate put forward in the original post.

So why come into the 'off topic' forum at all? Why post in this thread?

As for marriage - it is a secular, and not a religious institution. If two atheists can marry, or a Jew and a Christian, or a Muslim and an atheist, etc then why can't two folks of the same gender? I mean sure, if your religion disagrees, then don't allow us to marry in your church, but why do the religious right get such as strong say in a secular institution which the majority of Australians believe (70% last time I looked) should be offered to same sex couples as well.

 

[bum]

As for marriage...not a religious institution.

Most of your post is semantically sound but I call bullshit on this. Marriage is many things, across many cultures - one cannot definitively say what it is and what it isn't. To deny that there are people who marry "before God" and take that more seriously than the piece of paper you claim marriage to be completely undermines their commitment to each other and is pretty hilarious given the context and your position on it. Ducatiboy's post above about the (European) origins of marriage may very well be accurate (I couldn't say either way but I'm happy to accept it as correct) but I don't see what relevance it has - unless you're arguing about why same-sex marriages should have been acceptable in 25AD, of course. There is a direct and undeniable link between the concept of the modern Western marriage and Christianity.

 

[manticle]

Most of your post is semantically sound but I call bullshit on this. Marriage is many things, across many cultures - one cannot definitively say what it is and what it isn't. To deny that there are people who marry "before God" and take that more seriously than the piece of paper you claim marriage to be completely undermines their commitment to each other and is pretty hilarious given the context and your position on it. Ducatiboy's post above about the (European) origins of marriage may very well be accurate (I couldn't say either way but I'm happy to accept it as correct) but I don't see what relevance it has - unless you're arguing about why same-sex marriages should have been acceptable in 25AD, of course. There is a direct and undeniable link between the concept of the modern Western marriage and Christianity.

I read it as marriage is not solely/exclusively the domain of religion which I believe is a sound statement.

I think you've extrapolated unnecessarily.

 

[bum]

That seems a pretty broad interpretation of "marriage - it is a secular, and not a religious institution" to me. This language is not leaving much wriggle room for including the values of others as I read it.

Perhaps I'm being unfair.

 

[Tanga]

If, as you say, the past definition that Ducatiboy gave for marriage isn't relevent today, why should other past definitions be relevant? Yes, people's reasons for marrying are many and varied, and many marry 'before god' - but it still remains that marriage is a legal institution in this day and age, and that any marriage 'before god' wouldn't be worth the paper it wasn't written on in a court of law if it wasn't licenced, documented, and witnessed.

 

[bum]

If, as you say, the past definition that Ducatiboy gave for marriage isn't relevent today, why should other past definitions be relevant? Yes, people's reasons for marrying are many and varied, and many marry 'before god' - but it still remains that marriage is a legal institution in this day and age, and that any marriage 'before god' wouldn't be worth the paper it wasn't written on in a court of law if it wasn't licenced, documented, and witnessed.

Uh...wait...what? I was clearly talking of the present context of "the modern Western marriage". My whole point is that there's no validity in trying to define today's marriages by yesterday's. Don't make the mistake of thinking that Christian values are done and dusted - this is still very much a society guided by Judaeo-Christian values even if fewer and fewer of us attend church.

As for your second point - well if that's how you feel then the law says same-sex marriages aren't legal and I'm glad we could resolve the matter before bedtime.

 

[manticle]

That seems a pretty broad interpretation of "marriage - it is a secular, and not a religious institution" to me. This language is not leaving much wriggle room for including the values of others as I read it.

Perhaps I'm being unfair.

Maybe way you quoted suggested something different. I guess it was the abbreviation - second reading makes a bit more sense of it. If you disagree that marriage is a secular institition, you could have quoted more appropriately .

The suggestion that it is secular though doesn't specifically deny that it has religious associations - just that in contemporary society (specifically legally) it exists outside a religious framework.

I am an atheist. I can legally marry my agnostic lady friend in Australia, in a forest or barn or backyard as long as I follow certain guidelines. If my lady friend was a bloke/I was a chick, I couldn't: even if we were both believers in some kind of organised religion. That makes it (marriage) secular. It (marriage, the concept, rather than the legality) has long term significance to cultures who operate outside the ideas of organised religion, even if there's a spirituality associated with it. Again that puts it on the side of secularism.

Late, tired, hope it's sense making. As always - prepared to clarify if it ain't.

 

[bum]

Maybe way you quoted suggested something different. I guess it was the abbreviation - second reading makes a bit more sense of it. If you disagree that marriage is a secular institition, you could have quoted more appropriately .

The suggestion that it is secular though doesn't specifically deny that it has religious associations - just that in contemporary society (specifically legally) it exists outside a religious framework.

But this is exactly why I deleted the part about the secular concept of marriage (which is steeped in Christian tradition anyway, but let's ignore that for now) - my issue is with the exclusive nature of the phrase "not a religious institution". I mean, it quite patently is - even if not for everyone. I don't even understand how this is under question.

I am an atheist. I can legally marry my agnostic lady friend in Australia, in a forest or barn or backyard as long as I follow certain guidelines. If my lady friend was a bloke/I was a chick, I couldn't: even if we were both believers in some kind of organised religion. That makes it (marriage) secular.

No. That makes marriage certificates secular. Let me give you a personal for instance - I married a lass from another culture. Twice, actually. The first time was a traditional ceremony for her culture involving only our family and friends. No government permission was granted. This is when we declared our commitment to one another in front of those we hold dear and began our life together as one. Are you of the position that we weren't really married until the Department of Births Deaths and Marriages got around to rubber stamping a piece of paper after we got around to having a civil ceremony here 3 months later? Perhaps a more contextually appropriate example would be better. Do you deny Brad the right to refer to his partner as his "husband" when his marriage is a legitimate "secular" marriage? Or are they only committed to each other in New Zealand (or wherever it was - none of my business)? Reducing marriage only to the piece of paper does a disservice to the commitment people have for each other and denying them that does the same.

Yes, I obviously agree completely that people can be committed to each other without a piece of paper but if they want it why shouldn't they have it?

It (marriage, the concept, rather than the legality) has long term significance to cultures who operate outside the ideas of organised religion, even if there's a spirituality associated with it. Again that puts it on the side of secularism.

I'd suggest you'd be very, very hard pressed to find an anthropologist who could name such a culture for you. Unless, you know, you wanna break it down to dubstep or something.

[EDIT: minor clarification added]