So...

[ShadowHM]

about your intent.

I note, however, that you have no comment about the questions I raised. :P

[Occhidiangela]

It struck me that the places cited as ones where arranged (and presumably thus at least initially loveless) marriages are common are also some of the places where the extended family is much stronger as a societal influence than some others where the nuclear family is the basic building block. I then began to wonder about where and how that 'powerful spiritual bond' notion began to be fostered. Is there a relationship between the need for emphasising that bond and the breakdown of the extended family as the foundation of society? Is there a relationship between the desire of the church to be a powerful influence on people’s lives and the emphasis placed on the spiritual nature of a marriage as opposed to the more secular bonding that arranged marriages create between families?

OK, to answer your question . . .

I will generally absent from this conversation all cultures wherein the wife is considered chattel. They are still around, I wonder if they will ever go away.

So, in the realm of "a man and a woman show up and get married of their own volition, or by general arrangement of families" (danger, element of chattel possible there) . . .

And . . .

I am using as an assumption that the translations of the original Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramaic I have read, to include King James, RSV, and a few others, are close enough to be grounds for discussion.

The codification of the concept of marriage as depitcted in the New Testament, two become one, is an ideal to strive for, and has been so for just under 2000 years. Much of the codification was in the letters of the Apostles. As a body of work, they influenced my own civilization considerably. Those ideals hold if, and this is a big if, the two before the priest and the witnesses are sincere in their intent to embrace those guidelines.

Till death to us part, forsaking all others, sacrifice for one another, two become one, for better and worse, in sickness and in health, and so on.

This is not news.

I will go so far as to suggest that the Islamic antipathy to adultery, if rather one sided, is at least modestly in concurrence with that ideal.

The model of wife as chattel, however, predates the Christian ideal in many pagan societies. That, like Easter and Christmas, seemed to have gotten fused with the ideals presented and as we have seen, at the least in European Aristocratic societies, considerable chattel trading. One wonders if daughters of Kings and QUeens had brands on their behinds. :P Yet the forms of the ideal were recited. So, I wonder how the poor, illiterate folks dealt with this? In any case, the idea that the union was and is spiritual is rather old. The reality? Chattel seems to have sustained for a long time. I'd say the suffrage movements of the 19th century had a lot to do with re directing that idea.

Ideals run into human shortcomings. But given the repitition of the ideal, over and over, I imagine that over the centuries many of the folks who gave their vows took them to heart and tried to live up to them. How much they trusted and sacrificed for each other, and for their children, is a matter of cases, and how close any of us can live up to an ideal.

[Lord_Olf]

Hi Occhi,

sorry if I go OT, but it's "Lothlórien" or "Lórien" (in the short version). Well, never mind, just wanted to let you know... :-)

Take care,
Lord_Olf

[Bone]

I don’t view threads in the 'threaded' view (I know many of you do), so apologies if this reply hits the wrong person.

What Occhidiangela was getting at, and a problem that I have personally, is the desire to federalize these laws. I am unsure as to what my biggest objection to the proposed Gay Marriage amendment is. It is a toss up between 3 things. In no particular order, I think the question of gay marriage is a state issue, I don’t think government should be involved in contracts between individuals, and the wording of the amendment seems to preclude civil unions entirely (this is under dispute).

As Milton Friedman said, "[T]he greatest threat to human freedom, is the concentration of power, whether in the hands of government, or anyone else.".

With the different jurisdictions throughout the several states, people were always free to vote with their feet. If you didn’t' like city laws, you could move to a different city. Didn't like the laws in your state, there were several others available. However, once power is concentrated at the federal level, as it would be with the proposed amendment, there would be no escaping the power that the federal government would wield over marriage. The federalist style government, among other things, was designed to separate those powers, and prevent the concentration of power.

It's been stated well enough in this thread already, but I'd prefer government to be involved in as little as possible. Marriage is not high on the priority list. The Preamble, " We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.". I don’t see the State's recognition of marriage furthering any of those goals. Domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, securing liberty? Where does marriage fit in?

The amendment that Bush is endorsing is only 2 sentences long, but is under much scrutiny. Put forward by congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, it reads:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

The first sentence clearly defines marriage as the union between one man, and one woman. But it may also forbid civil unions between same-sex couples. The courts would then have to interpret what the intent of the word "marriage" in the amendment meant. If they construed it to mean the idea of unions per se, it may forbid those as well. The "legal incidents" clause of the second sentence can be interpreted to ban any type of civil union at the state level between same-sex couples as well. So while the proponents of the amendment may claim that it only legislates marriage, and not civil unions, the courts could see otherwise.

Based on those reasons, I am against this amendment.



***

"Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher." – Thomas Paine, Common Sense 1776

[--Pete]

Hi,

In the past, the "laws" of a group were often the whims of an individual or the prejudices of the group. What was "legal" often depended on the political power or the charisma of the accused individual. Henry II got away with many things that were far worse than any forced his son, John, to grant Magna Carta.

The concept of clearly defined laws, formally agreed to and uniformly enforced is a very modern concept. However the question of how those laws are to be derived remains unanswered. In the past, those laws were often simply codified versions of the prejudices, the superstitions, and the customs of the tribe involved. The concepts of the rights of individuals arising during the Enlightenment opened the door a crack towards the establishment of what laws were just and what laws weren't. It was the starting step on the journey to a rational system of laws.

In a sense, these laws were the affirmation of the power of the people. Unlike traditional laws which told the ruled how to behave, these laws told the rulers. And, yes, even so called "democracies" have rulers, as anyone who has dealt with a civil servant (RAH dubs them "civil masters", but I disagree finding few of them "civil") knows full well.

So, while we have individually named rights, we still lack an overarching concept of "rights". We still lack a method, a theory, a guideline to ensure that the laws passed are fair and equitable. We need laws governing which laws should exist and which laws should not.

I reject the local argument you present. While it was true in a three mile an hour world, I do not believe that it holds when a person can travel from Rome to Tokyo in a quarter of the time it took to go from Rome to Florence two centuries earlier. We are still saddled with the rules of a world where each community is, effectively, isolated in a world where nearly every community is connected. Perhaps the community of which we are all members has expanded faster than the ability for many individuals to acknowledge that expansion. But, just as we do not let the Luddites set the pace for our technological advancement, neither should we allow the isolationists set the pace for our social advancement. Neither group wishes to acknowledge that time brings progress and what was might not be what needs to be.

As to your concerns that we will revert, consider that historically it is those who wished to move into the future who gave rise to increased freedoms. The first step to regression is to stop progression. The first step to losing all rights is to deny them to select groups. The second step is to surrender some for apparent advantage. I wonder what the third step will be and when we'll take it.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Thanks for the correction. :D

[Occhidiangela]

"Domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, securing liberty?"
Where does marriage fit in?"

Hmm, promoting the general welfare? As in, a society with stable marriages is purported to be less turbulent than one without them?

Domestic Tranquility? Hmmm. If you show up at 3 Am with whiskey on your breath and a lousy alibi, chances are that Domestic Tranquility is at risk. :)

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

...with Hype and Blowhard.

[Bone]

Occhidiangela,

The General Welfare clause has been so widely interpreted (it's the justification for the entire Health and Human Services Department), it's beyond the scope of this thread. I personally don't believe that it covers marriage, but the point was made more for effect rather than substance. Although I would address one point you bring up.

"Hmm, promoting the general welfare? As in, a society with stable marriages is purported to be less turbulent than one without them? "

This may be true, and I believe most studies will show that children raised in stable two parent households do better than those without. Of course, that is not a rationale against same-sex marriage. It doesn't speak to children raised in two parent stable same-sex households. I've yet to see any evidence that a stable hetero marriage is superior to a stable same-sex marriage. Have you seen any?

[Chaerophon]

The assumption that reason will lead one to virtue is not valid universally, but holds true only to those who seek via reason the answers to their problems. Those who do not put forth the effort to learn or use reason are automatically cut out. That detracts, does it not, from the ability to advance virtue on a macro scale?

Certainly does! That's why I'm making the argument that, to a certain extent, Christian morality is nothing more than a codified version of the Socratic form. All of the assumptions that Socrates argued could be discovered through reason alone were transcribed into the teachings of Christ and encouraged on the basis of faith alone and a notion of sin. Turn the other cheek. Love thy neighbour. Socrates argued that through an enlightened, more perfect knowledge of virtue through heightened contemplation, one would necessarily arrive at these truths.

Reasoning can, when approached from certain min-max outcomes based models, result in actions and decisions that stamp on your fellow citizens. That strikes me as non virtuous. I suggest the decisions based on layoffs rather than recapitalization in any number of factory towns would pass Socratian muster as being well reasoned decisions which trample the human element. Sacrifice is somehow ignored, sacrifice on the part of shareholders for short term with a long term payoff, yet giving and sacrifice are powerful forces for creating virtue.

Reason in the Socratic sense has nothing to do with utilitarianism or "min-max" outcomes. Socrates argued that a higher model of virtue exists by which humans would conduct themselves if they would but take the time to discern it. "Stamping" on one's fellow citizens was the farthest thing from his mind. That being said, it is important to put his ideas into context. He existed in a time when slavery was permissable; in fact, it was a vital part of the economic life of Athens. Women had a diminished role in the economy at the time. Of course, these were true, to a certain degree, of Christ's time, as well. The fact remains, the primary focus of his philosophy was the discernment of what was just and the means by which he argued we may all attain enlightenment was through constant contemplation and thirst for knowledge.

Furthermore, under Socratic philosophy, sacrifice is far from ignored. His death alone is an example of a man sacrificing his life for his principles. He believed in the necessity of laws and justice in the state, and so, despite having every opportunity to save his own life on numerous occasions, he martyred himself so that his teachings could live on, and refusing to sacrifice his principles in exchange for his life. He argued that the pursuit of material riches at the expense of virtue was to live an unhappy and unfruitful life. An unvirtous life. Sound like anyone we know?

Heaven and Hell are irrelevant to this conversation.

Heaven and Hell are not at all irrelevant in my considerations. They make up an important part of the faith-oriented addition to Socrates' notion of virtue that constitute the Christian philosophy. Now we are taught that if we act virtuously we may attain everlasting life; for Socrates, this life was all that we had, and he conceded that to act virtuously would, in fact, be to deprive one's self of certain earthly benefits that the "unjust" would possess. He argued that the spiritual benefits to be derived in this life from such a virtuous existence would be obvious to anyone possessed of a sufficient degree of philosophic knowledge, attainable through contemplation and dialogue, and that such a man would be happier in the end than his fellows.

The central message of the teachings of Jesus, at least the message that I find central, is that of selflessness, self sacrifice on behalf of your fellow man, your family, your neighbors, even your enemies, and the focus on finding the path to Salvation (which I translate as true inner peace and synonymous to "with God"). I accept that there will be Christians who would find such characterizations heretical.

Socrates would find none of these attributes to be out of keeping with his philosophy. The difference is, he believed that virtue was a self-evident principle, that through sufficient knowledge of justice and virtue, one would arrive at the conclusion that the best life is that which is led with concern for others and love of one another. Your Salvation, then, is the same as Socrates. However, the difference lies in your promise of everlasting salvation. Socrates believed that the spirit must go on in some form, but he certainly didn't hold much in the way of a concrete set of beliefs in the afterlife.

Your Socrates' reliance on pure reason to find virtue falls short in the spiritual and moral realm, which is where virtue naturally resides.

Virtue naturally resides in our conduct with one another. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Socrates would not have behaved any differently than the best Christians. He felt that he understood virtue as such, not because he held faith in some higher power, but because he could see how his positive actions, if conducted by the multitudes, would lead to a better life for all and in acting as he did, in his more perfect knowledge of virtue (his claim: the reason that he was smarter than everyone else was that he knew that he knew nothing, so certainly not perfect) he argued that he achieved a satisfaction not to be derived through materialism, injustice, or, in the Christian sense, sin.

[ShadowHM]

I am using as an assumption that the translations of the original Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramaic I have read, to include King James, RSV, and a few others, are close enough to be grounds for discussion.

My Bible study days are 30 years past, but they were with the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version. Those would do fine as a discussion base.

The codification of the concept of marriage as depicted in the New Testament, two become one, is an ideal to strive for, and has been so for just under 2000 years. Much of the codification was in the letters of the Apostles. As a body of work, they influenced my own civilization considerably. Those ideals hold if, and this is a big if, the two before the priest and the witnesses are sincere in their intent to embrace those guidelines.

Nice try….but the time frame is wrong. Christianity has been about for that long, but that is not the relevant number. It took most of the first millennia of its existence for it to cover Europe as the dominant religion.

Actually, I have two problems with your approach. First, I am wondering if we read the same scriptures? I remember the main thrust of Christian teaching about marriage coming from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, especially chapter 7. The oft-quoted chapter 13 is, I was given to understand, guidance for all Christians to deal with one another, not married couples. However, that is irrelevant to this particular discussion. It is possible to cherry-pick scripture to serve almost any end. :P

Much more importantly, the very notion of ‘the codification in the letters of the Apostles’ is something that had no significance whatsoever to the main body of Christianity for most of its existence. What little there was to read was hand-written in Latin and was not available for anyone but a scholar to see. Our mainly illiterate ancestors heard about it from their local parish priests. Indeed, chances were that the local parish priest couldn’t read either, and he recited memorized passages as he performed ceremonies such as marriages, christenings and funerals.


I don’t know about you, Occhi, but even in my childhood, the Roman Catholics were not encouraged to actually read the Bible themselves, but to accept ‘God’s word’ from the pulpit as delivered by the parish priest. That was one of the defining elements of the Protestants – that they would read scripture for themselves and not merely accept the gospel from the church hierarchy. So your 2000 years is actually less than 500, and even less if you want to talk about those who ‘read the scripture’ themselves.

I wonder how the poor, illiterate folks dealt with this?

Chances are they were doing the same thing as their secular leaders – marrying their children off to useful family alliances, and probably hoping that there would be some joy in the union to accompany it.

[kandrathe]

One interjection on religion vs philosophy; Christianity beyond a profound change in philosophy from Judaism of that day, still requires submitting ones will to God's will. It is not enough to follow all the rules and live the "perfect" life if one is not "a follower of God". Also most religions have in common the revelation of divine will through meditation or prayer. So, while philosophy could also be contemplated during meditation, the direction of your thoughts would be your own. The devotee to a religion has faith that through meditation the divine will help guide them in their lives.

One Christian once put it to me this way; It is not enough that you are on the ladder and it is unimportant how high and long you have climbed. All God is concerned with is that you are still trying to climb closer to him.

So, then in saying that leading a virtuous life is no guarantee of "heaven", leading a wicked life in no insurance of "hell" either. The Christian believes that redemption from wickedness is possible all the way to the end of ones life.

[Chaerophon]

It is not enough to follow all the rules and live the "perfect" life if one is not "a follower of God".

And therein lies my problem. If "the code" as it exists in the 10 commandments, Christ's teachings, etc. is discernable through the use of reason or attendance to natural sympathies alone, then why is it that one must be "a follower of God" if one is to be priviledged with an afterlife? On principle alone, why does it concern God whether you act virtuously thanks to the "proof" of God's existence that was to be derived from Christ's physical resurrection or if you act virtuously purely because it seems the right thing to do and Christ's teachings simply make sense? Why should it matter to God whether or not you deem Christ immortal? Isn't the person who acts virtuously because it is right and good a 'better' person in some sense than is he/she who act as such because they know it is right on the basis of Christ's authoritative position via his resurrection?

If Christ was resurrected in order to prove to us that his teachings were true, that they truly came from God, then it seems as though the people who understood the truth of Christ's teachings in advance of his resurrection were the ones who truly deserved the gift of heaven.

[Freepaperclips]

If I understand correctly (someone please correct me if I am mistaken), those who died before being exposed (or converted... it's sketchy on this one, the Roman Catholic's say "before conversion," but some of the protestants say that hearing of Jesus is enough to get you darned eternally) to Christ's teaching, were sent to pugatory, and then ascended to heaven from there if they choose to do so and if they lived a virtuous life according to their own standards.

Christianity is based off Judaism, and according to Jewish tradition all souls were darned until the Savior came. According to Christianity, Jesus came, thus allowing ascent to Heaven.

[Occhidiangela]

1. As I said, I wonder how the illiterates dealt with the fact that they had to trust someone else to read all that stuff. You now get into the style of each parish priest, who was literate, and who could read it all and bring out salient points.

2. There is a more about marriage in the Bible than Paul's letters, which illustrates once again the problems of not reading the whole book. Indeed, Jesus comments on marriage as a spiritual joining in the 4 primary Gospels.

3. Marting Luther, 1400's, broke that grip of The Church on reading the book. You have heard of Protestants, right? Some of my best friends are Protestants. ;) Before that, there were at least two centuries before the Canon was established. What did Christians do then? I gather that some churches, primarily in Greece and Asia minor, took the guidance as a good model for action.

We now head to the Greek Orthodox practices, in which my Brother was married and to which faith he converted. Tied to them were Russian and Slavic Orthodox practices. Again, the chattel idea stayed bound to the newer idea for some time. There were many varietals of Church who did not see things the way the Bishop of Rome saw it. Some got attacked, see the Cathars, some became reformers, some made their own way.

But the idea, the ideal, has been around since the various commentaries and Gospels were written, and for what it's worth, in the srpreading of the Faith and the adapting of it by folks who encountered it, the ideas infiltrated each society it spread to.

But I did not say that it was a clean sweep. That ideal had to compete with other models of marriage. Which takes me down to the matter of cases.

Priests are not clones. No matter how faithful to the party line, they each bring a certain style to their parish. So, given the wealth of material available, I find it very hard to believe that for the past millenium clergymen have confined their guidance to marrying couples to one or two bits of the New Testament.

Through the process of scholarship necessary to get ordained, to be able to read the Scriptures, to copy them over in the case of monks, brains were put to work. Were that not the case, we would never have heard of Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans, etc.

I do not fall for the modern trap of seeing the Catholic Church as monolithic. It's not, it has its factions and sects, its schools of thought. Nor for that matter is Christianity even remotely monolithic. There is so much to work with that, last I checked, there are about 2000 flavors based on the same basic set of principles.

Baskin and Robbins must be envious.

[ShadowHM]

Now that you have come around to agreeing with what I said, thank you!

And quit the condescension, thank you very much !

I have indeed read the entire Bible, albeit long ago. (I admit to skimming the begats. :P ) You were the one who cited the letters of the Apostles, not me.

The multiple schisms in the church were part of why I suggested that there was not necessarily a 'powerful spiritual' bond between man and woman as the basis for marriage in all of those 2000 years you spouted off about. When there is no monolithic structure then each parish and diocese gets what the local church heirarchy decides is important.

I have heard of Protestants. Or did you bother re-reading my post before you hurried to show off your erudition again? I failed to mention the schism that started the Greek Orthodox church in order to keep some brevity to my response.

And parish priests, of course, are not and were not clones. I suspect you overstate their literacv and erudition over those 2000 years by a long shot, though. And I further believe you do not know your history as well as all that, if you think the Franciscans started with erudition.

This sub-thread has gone on long enough. I have to frame a response to city hall about yet another change to my neighbourhood they are contemplating and need to spend energy on it. Have a Guiness. I will crack open a Crystal and we can sip our beer together for a moment before I tackle city hall.

[eppie]

I checked this thread out now for a couple of days and like more of these kinds of ethical threads it ends in the back and forth, throwing of historical facts. Preferably biblical, and more than 2000 years old.

I don't know what mister Bush is upto with his complaints about that major of SF. Probably it is some kind of election stunt, but I heard also John Kerry opposes gay-marriage. I would have rather seen that Bush worried a bit more about the ongoing scandals in the katholic church for example.
I can imagine that a lot of religiously driven people have problems with gay-marriage because apparantly it is forbidden (says the bible which I did not read, often I think that I want to read it (for in threads like this), but than again ..) But I think the US which always calls itsself the land of the free, should clearly divide church and state. In holland gay marriage is legal, and I think it helps gay people to have this feeling of really belonging to eachother. I cannot blame them, and I also don't think I have the right to (as long as they don't bother other people with it) judge about other peoples life.
eppie

[Den]

I have kidlet #2 on the way in late May

Hiya Nico,
Congrats on #2! We just had our 2nd on Feb 20th.

On topic? I'll just say:
Mawidge, the bwessed awwangement, that dweam wiffim a dweam...

Ah, forget it.

[ShadowHM]

Congrats on #2! We just had our 2nd on Feb 20th.

Congratulations ! Nice to see you de-lurk once in a while :D

Mawidge, the bwessed awwangement, that dweam wiffim a dweam...

Thanks for that reminder. B) I need to grabl that movie off the back shelf and have fun watching it again.

[Occhidiangela]

But I said too little. Brrevity may be the soul of wit, but it can cause a thought to turn into an incomplete soundbyte.

The differing orders are an outcome of differing intellectual, and for that matter political, approaches by literate and educated minds, based on the same set of basic principles. (And of course tempered by limitations of time and place.)

I will disagree with your assumption in re the lack of a spiritual element, though I can't prove my position beyond my own observation of clergy from many sects, that for that millenium or two involved the principles were ignored or even not emphasized. My shortcoming to that observation is that I have not time traveled back to see how, for example, Martin Luther conducted a wedding, and what pastoral measures he and others of that period used to encourage adherence to the guidance provided, for example, in the letter to the Ephesians among other bits of collected wisdom.

The ideal was there. Again, the delta between achieving it and pursuing it depends on how it is sold (doctrine) and the obstacles to it (both in motivation and the insertion of other competing ideas, for example the chattel bit from post one.)

As to the Bible, the begats section made for some great character and NPC names in my old D&D games, since I never felt like calling the local healer or weapons smith Fred or dude. :)

As to what I know about history, I often synthesize and do what any number of amateur historians do: make inferences and guesses. Hell, real historians do that all the time. How else do their lively debates get started, ya know, the ones Pete refers to in acadamia that start along the lines of "my esteemed colleague is an utter nitwit because . . ."