Obama, Proposition 8
Locked
 
|
Related to the issue of legalizing gay marriage, I think it is extremely important to stick with the Webster definition of marriage -- which includes
"to unite in a close personal way: AND "a legal union as husband and wife" -- I think if two people are the age of consenting adults and meet these two requirements (since gay couples can choose who is generally the husband and generally the wife if they want to) then they should be able to form a legal marriage. I think that anything else ignores their rights, and ignores the definition of marriage itself. Peggy Miller ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Thus spake peggy miller circa 11/11/2008 08:07 AM:
> Related to the issue of legalizing gay marriage, I think it is extremely > important to stick with the Webster definition of marriage -- which includes > "to unite in a close personal way: AND "a legal union as husband and wife" > -- I think if two people are the age of consenting adults and meet these two > requirements (since gay couples can choose who is generally the husband and > generally the wife if they want to) then they should be able to form a legal > marriage. I think that anything else ignores their rights, and ignores the > definition of marriage itself. But if we argue from the dictionary we may end up with arguments like the following. While all the below agree with your point: 1) "marriage" generally refers to a spousal relationship and 2) "spouse" is a term meaning things like vow, pledge, ritual, etc, and 3) "husband" generally means master of the house, "wife" really is defined to be a female. So, while lesbian couples can choose who is the husband and who is the wife; gay male couples can't. They can choose the husband; but neither can be a wife. Personally, I think marriage is an obsolete concept. We should completely separate legal contracts from religious ceremonies and purge "marriage" from the law entirely. It should be in the exact same category as baptism. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
It's not really about definitions, except how the natural change in
relationships is changing definition. As far as personal bonding and the forms of lasting attachments go there's a lot more variety than simplistic rules of gender permutations and combinations can ever define. Among the gay's I know of 'wife' is not undefined at all, except as it raises stereotypes in others minds that don't fit. When talking about defining categories of natural forms I think you need to look in some other book. Phil Henshaw > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:56 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Obama, Proposition 8 > > Thus spake peggy miller circa 11/11/2008 08:07 AM: > > Related to the issue of legalizing gay marriage, I think it is > extremely > > important to stick with the Webster definition of marriage -- which > includes > > "to unite in a close personal way: AND "a legal union as husband and > wife" > > -- I think if two people are the age of consenting adults and meet > these two > > requirements (since gay couples can choose who is generally the > husband and > > generally the wife if they want to) then they should be able to form > a legal > > marriage. I think that anything else ignores their rights, and > ignores the > > definition of marriage itself. > > But if we argue from the dictionary we may end up with arguments like > the following. > > While all the below agree with your point: > > 1) "marriage" generally refers to a spousal relationship and > 2) "spouse" is a term meaning things like vow, pledge, ritual, etc, and > 3) "husband" generally means master of the house, > > "wife" really is defined to be a female. So, while lesbian couples can > choose who is the husband and who is the wife; gay male couples can't. > They can choose the husband; but neither can be a wife. > > Personally, I think marriage is an obsolete concept. We should > completely separate legal contracts from religious ceremonies and purge > "marriage" from the law entirely. It should be in the exact same > category as baptism. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Thus spake Phil Henshaw circa 11/11/2008 09:12 AM:
> It's not really about definitions, That was precisely my point. However, the law _is_ about definitions (though the purpose of the law is not about definitions). Hence, my preferred solution regarding the law would be to eliminate the concept of "marriage" completely, for everyone. This would include legalizing poly[gamy|andry]. If 2, 3, or N people want to enter into a contract that involves household assets and medical power of attorney, then so be it. But leave your religion at the threshold of the courthouse. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Yes, that's the problem that simple rules get into with complex subjects.
Polygamy is taboo for quite other reasons it seems. I'd say let marriage be whatever the spiritual tradition you feel part of says and let whoever wants to fulfill the legal obligations of civil unions, whatever they happen to be called, do that too. Then "who people are" in their relationships is quite up to them. I think there are too many overlapping kinds of interpersonal relationships to start drawing lines between them, and what nature does to solve that problem, let them all drink out of the same stream, is the way to sort things out. Phil Henshaw > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:36 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Obama, Proposition 8 > > Thus spake Phil Henshaw circa 11/11/2008 09:12 AM: > > It's not really about definitions, > > That was precisely my point. > > However, the law _is_ about definitions (though the purpose of the law > is not about definitions). Hence, my preferred solution regarding the > law would be to eliminate the concept of "marriage" completely, for > everyone. This would include legalizing poly[gamy|andry]. If 2, 3, or > N people want to enter into a contract that involves household assets > and medical power of attorney, then so be it. But leave your religion > at the threshold of the courthouse. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |