on redefining marriage...

1. 68

   SparklingJewelposted 12 years ago

   this is not what our courts are for...we are so far afield from Constitutional alignment on this its serious.
   
   
   quotes from the article I agree with:
   ...the American people should make these decisions, not unelected judges...
   
   ...People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries...
   
   http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/18/mor … ing%2BBell
   
   For me, the answer is to provide all the legal equivalents for marriage (the human rights), but not the definition of the word. Marriage is what it is since it's inception...between one man and one woman. Any other kind of "union" can be called whatever they want to call it; but it is not marriage.
   
   Marriage = Energetically speaking (chi through the meridians and chakras) and the balanced flow for ultimate ascension (liberation from this physical plane of existence; no need to live another human life to work out one's karma) which is life's ultimate goal and purpose. None of us are perfectly there yet, or we wouldn't be living a human life...so no matter what our current lifestyle is, we are all still working toward ascension...so, we all deserve our human rights.
   But marriage was created by humanity to follow THE plan of procreation to continue life on earth...that is why it is important to maintain its understanding. And I am not saying marriage as defined here is the only way toward ascension...the celibate state is another. The important thing to recognize in what I am saying is the use of our energy and how it flows through our chakras because of the ways we choose to use it and our conscience behind that use.
   I realize my opinion is not the norm...but it is mine
   
   what say you?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Marriage was created to attempt to ensure fidelity between partners, partly this is to ensure lineage of offspring but more importantly it was to prevent the spread of STD's and to form binding relationships between people where they could feel comfortable in that relationship and have equal rights as a member of each other's family would.
      
      Most of those benefits are just as useful if not more to aspects of the same sex community, marriage is no longer a religious institution, churches no longer even conduct the official part of a marriage merely an aesthetic celebration of it so the religious community has no cause or right to insert their beliefs into the marriages of others.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      RavenBikerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What say me?  Where do I begin?
      
      The issue of marriage being weighed in our courts (and soon the Supreme Court) is very well in the “afield” of “alignment” of the Constitution.  The legality and recognition of marriage in American society is granted by the state.  What the state gives or gives not as a right cannot be challenged by popular vote.  Privileges, in contrast, carry the requirement of a completion of a set standard of rules.  The marriage licensing, in contrast, never carried such rules and requirements until the past 15 years (such afterthought rule additions such as DOMA and the thirty some odd state constitution revisions).  When rights create a separate and distinct class of people, it ceases being a right.  The Constitution requires judicial review of all laws, actions and “rule making” taken by the Executive and Legislative branches of government, whether federal or state, to be done.  So, yes, this is exactly what our courts are for ---to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  If the courts did not involve themselves nearly 50 years ago, the United States would still be an apartheid country.
      
      Second, the only thing that has been traditional in marriage is all the changes forced upon it by religions and governments.  It is true that people invented marriage but the invention was not for what you had put forth as “traditional” purpose: procreation.  The notion that    “...People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries...” is a fallacy. People have been marrying one another in a variety of ways and have changed as they went along.  If you want “traditional marriage” in the sense of what tradition means, you will marry for purely economic and political reasons.  Children, the byproduct of heterosexual unions, were for the purpose of preserving, protecting and proliferating wealth and power.  Basically, traditional marriage was for the wealthy and powerful.  The purpose of “love,” God,” and “family” and a function of average Joes is, in fact, very recent phenomena impacting marriage, say, for the past 700 years.
      
      Finally, I have researched this topic and the changes to marriage in the United States go much further beyond the addition of same-sex marriages to the institution of marriage.  The subject of researched knowledge and understanding is immense.  I’ve written a series of Hubs about marriage trying to narrow the focus and hopefully done merely okay with it.  Your opinion is not the norm not because its “popular” to think, feel and believe otherwise in contemporary culture, but not the norm because your argument situates itself on the idea that marriage has always been static.  The fact is, marriage has changed so many times and in so many ways that the word “traditional” attached to marriage begs the question: which tradition?  If a specific tradition is enforced on marriage, is that fair to everyone?  Of course not.  What marriage has always been is what you, personally and individually, make it.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         +1
         
         Particularly on the issue of "traditional marriage" there is no such thing, marriages varied all across the world and from faith to faith, Mormons practiced polygamy, Hindus and Muslims had Harems, people were married off at age 10 for political or economic gain etc. etc.

         replyreport
2. 65

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   If the people always made the decision it would have taken a lot longer to get black people full civil rights.
   
   I think marriage is part personal ritual that means whatever they want it to mean, and part a set of privileges under the law. The second part should be available to all or be abolished.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The choice of sexual activity isn't in the same category as skin color.
      I wish people would stop insulting black people by trying to make that comparison.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         One can not choose sexual orientation either, marriage is not the choice of sexual activity it's the choice to wish to be bound to the person you love and the legal benefits that come with that.
         
         Frankly however this is an argument barely worth having anymore, conservatives have lost it decisively it's just an increasingly short period of time until it's no longer an issue. One side is so devastatingly in the right that they have been able to bring the majority of the population around in a very short period of time.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Soul Man Walkerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            That reminds me of a joke that indicates the contrary. Ha ha ha!

            replyreport
      2. 65

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Sexual orientation is innate, so yes it is.  But I am not talking only about gays, also polygamy etc.
         
         Comparing homosexuality to race is only an insult if you are prejudiced about homosexuality.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Not so.
            A person cannot change their race, but they sure as hay CAN decide when and where and with whom they engage in sex.

            replyreport
   2. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      + a multillion times.   It is the prevailing society and/or religious consensus which defines what a so-called proper marriage should be.   It is not preordained and such a definition varies from culture to culture and changes from time to time.    In other words, the definition of what a marriage should be is not etched in stone and it is everchanging.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         SparklingJewelposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         ...marriage (energetically/spiritually speaking) is what it is, people make it what they want, there is a difference

         replyreport
3. 75

   wildernessposted 12 years ago

   What is this redefine stuff?  Marriage has never been defined as one man, one woman until recent times when certain groups decided to claim it has always been that way as anything else violated their particular religious code.  And, of course, everyone in the country needs to be forced to follow their religious beliefs; other belief systems need not apply.
   
   Polygamy, polygyny, group marriage, etc. have always been with us.  You are the one suddenly trying to redefine the word to mean only what you like, not society in general.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      SparklingJewelposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ...I appreciate ones discovery of history, from the written understanding of marriage from people of the past. BUT, there is little written, except in mostly hidden to the public view ancient texts on the "energetic" understanding, the spiritual understanding of traditional marriage. It does have to do with how "forms of the sexual acts" changes the flow of chi in the bodies of humanity, and how across time and changes of culture certain acceptances have been kept or forgotten.
      
      The original religions, people who put them together, either were able to "pass on" this "inner knowledge as wisdom" by example, and people chose to understand and live it, or not. The will to choose, free will as we've come to call it is the deal breaker of natural flow of chi.
      
      Belief from understanding, and understanding from beliefs is the deal maker or breaker.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Really?  The followers of Odin practiced polygamy, as has most of mankind at one time or another.
         
         Practitioners of the Vedic belief system, far predating Christianity, also used polygamy as a basic family unit.
         
         Homosexuality and gay marriage was far from uncommon in ancient China, the birthplace of the concept of chi.
         
         Both ancient Greek and Roman empire accepted homosexuality; early in the Roman Imperial period male-male marriage ceremonies were celebrated.
         
         So when you actually look at the "original" religions, and the people that put them together, current mores were not the norm.  Chi as well came from the culture commonly practicing gay marriage.
         
         In any case, however, our legal system, including definition of marriage, is not based on neither religious beliefs, spiritual understanding nor the vague concepts of chi.  It is based on individual rights and equality, not a belief in the spirit world, any of the vast number of Gods or their commands to humanity or even the "natural flow of chi".

         replyreport
4. 68

   SparklingJewelposted 12 years ago

   here is a new book and an excerpt from a podcast on the book.
   
   the book was written from a "secular or social justice perspective" of history and civil society, why and how laws are so dependent upon traditional marriage for security and upbringing of children and other civil matters
   
   
   http://whatismarriagebook.com/

   replyreport
   1. 75

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "UNTIL YESTERDAY, no society had seen marriage as anything other than a conjugal partner­ship: a male-female union."
      
      I generally have a little problem when the first sentence is false to fact. 
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
      
      Plainly, gay marriage is nothing new to a great many cultures.  It has been known for many, many centuries.
      
      But if you want security and upbringing for children as well as stability of family, you will want to look into line marriages.  Even clan marriages are far superior to monogamy in that respect.

      replyreport