Marriage. (to avoid a threadjack)

[amicus]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Random House: Marriage: 1. “The social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decisions to live as husband and wife by legal commitments…”

In the beginning, assuming there was a beginning…and Geraldo Rivera was not there to comment, consider for a moment what we are really discussing here.

And please, please, at least scan the links provided, ( or find your own) to get an overview.

Generation:…3. The average interval of time between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring. “…generation - the normal time between successive generations; "they had to wait a generation for that prejudice to fade"
period, period of time, time period - an amount of time; "a time period of 30 years"; "hastened the period of time of his recovery"; "Picasso's blue period"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/generation

I have always considered ‘generation’ to mean a period of about 30 years, not sure where the original idea came from, but I thought to support it.

I prefaced what I am about to say with the dictionary definition of ‘generation’ as I was going to lead off with: The current generation seems to have rejected objective definitions of words with preference for a more subjective, secular understanding of the tools we use to communicate. Which can make things difficult.

I am not pleased with the current standards of dictionary or encyclopedic definitions and explanations as I feel they have socially rejected absolutism and gone for relativism, which means…nothing matters….

That is a dangerous state of affairs, especially as such a subject of ‘marriage’ and the definitions of such.


I am going to be a little ‘mushy’ about this subject, because I ‘believe’ in Love. I cannot prove it for those of you who demand such, but I, contradicting some of what I said before about not ‘believing’ in anything, I ‘believe’ in love.

I think there is, between a man and a woman, that magical moment of discovering a true, ‘soul mate’ to use the vernacular. It cannot happen, in all its’ fullness, in any other way, only between complimenting opposites, with the fullest range of potential,(progeny) and deserve the ultimate meaning of love.

If you followed and read the links I provided, you will still not find the underlying motivation for such anomalies as polygamy and polyandry or homosexuality. But if you research deeper, you will discover that economic and social environments influenced sexual behavior.

In societies where war has decimated the population of young men, the victors can afford to support multiple wives who would otherwise starve and perish. In societies where women do not survive, one woman may serve several husbands. In societies wherein gender lines are blurred, people seek solace wherever they can find it.

Beneath, above and beyond all that, which most of you will not even consider, is the innate and intrinsic nature of the beast. What is ‘natural’ as thus, logical and rational for humans, all things being equal; which translates to: that which we should seek as an ideal.

I know, pretty heavy thinking for all you perverts, but then….

Amicus…

 

[Alessia Brio]

I am going to be a little ‘mushy’ about this subject, because I ‘believe’ in Love. I cannot prove it for those of you who demand such, but I, contradicting some of what I said before about not ‘believing’ in anything, I ‘believe’ in love.

I think there is, between a man and a woman, that magical moment of discovering a true, ‘soul mate’ to use the vernacular. It cannot happen, in all its’ fullness, in any other way, only between complimenting opposites, with the fullest range of potential,(progeny) and deserve the ultimate meaning of love.

(emphasis mine)

Ami, that's just bullshit.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Alessia Brio](emphasis mine)

Ami, that's just bullshit.

[/QUOTE]

~~~

Very poignant, Alessia, and worthy of an author...(not!)

One would think, that there should be 'real' definitions of words, do you not agree?

For if not; nothing is definitive, nothing is real, nothing is absolute and it really is just a matter of opinion.

I do not choose to live in a subjective world, I have no qualms if you choose to do so, but don't come on as morally superior because you admit to knowing nothing at all. It chafes my reason and my inner thighs...


amicus...

 

[Tuomas]

I'm annoyed by the lack of absolutes in the world, particularly with words.

But, I suppose that's what happens when you get lawers using words to ferret out a more convenient meaning to them

As for love, there is a neat bunch of chemical interractions and stimulae in the brain. Not exactly sure how it works, but it's really nifty

 

[Alessia Brio]

(emphasis mine)

Ami, that's just bullshit.

~~~

Very poignant, Alessia, and worthy of an author...(not!)

One would think, that there should be 'real' definitions of words, do you not agree?

For if not; nothing is definitive, nothing is real, nothing is absolute and it really is just a matter of opinion.

I do not choose to live in a subjective world, I have no qualms if you choose to do so, but don't come on as morally superior because you admit to knowing nothing at all. It chafes my reason and my inner thighs...


amicus...

Actually, good authors express themselves with as few words as possible. My response was concise and to the point. You apparently need to be whacked over the head with verbosity. I'll expand (a little bit):

If YOU choose to define love that way, that's just fine. But don't push your subjective definitions on those of us who know -- definitively and absolutely -- that "real" love does not require a person of the opposite sex.

It really IS just a matter of opinion. I respect that other people may define love differently & I expect the same in return. I don't want to live in a world in which there is no magic.

And ... where exactly did I say I was morally superior?

 

[Pure]

question:

the definition of 'marriage' is not necessarily being challenged.

a new jersey court decision recently affirmed gay unions, and the rights of persons to make them--- and said the legislature could decide on a term. i.e. expand the legal def. of marriage, OR establish civil unions with parallel and equivalent rights.


if there are 'civil unions' in which both parties have the rights of parents in 'marriages', including the rights to have children, rights of inheritance, decisions for the partner, etc. ....then it doesn't matter if the term 'marriage' is reserved-- by the conservative churches and by ami--for male-female civil unions, or for the male-female unions those conservative groups perform ['marrying' the man and the woman] and endorse.

do you, ami, have a problem with 'civil unions,' set up by the (secular) state, where the gender of the parties is left unspecified.??

 

[Pure]

alessia And ... where exactly did I say I was morally superior?

but you are! don't be embarrassed.

'love' back in Greek times (it continues up till now) was applied to feeling for the other, regardless of sex; indeed, some texts celebrate the male male mutual feelings as of higher order (since male-female matings were viewed simply as reproductive arrangements).

 

[past_perfect]

I think there is, between a man and a woman, that magical moment of discovering a true, ‘soul mate’ to use the vernacular. It cannot happen, in all its’ fullness, in any other way, only between complimenting opposites, with the fullest range of potential,(progeny) and deserve the ultimate meaning of love.

Nice mushy definition. Apart from reducing something potentially wonderful to a utilitarian concept, and ignoring that your soul-mate might be of the same gender (I know enough couples where this is the case) as well as delimiting something that is by definition boundless (i.e. love) I could almost agree.

I have to quote it by memory, as I am too lazy to look it up now, but this is what my favourite philosopher has to say about marriage:

"A successful marriage is like a piece of art. That's probably why it is so rare and elusive." (H.R.)

 

[neonlyte]

Amicus,
I think you are way off beam, though understandably to some degree. I'm not going to enter that fray other than to say I know many couples in many 'marital' arrangements, some work, some don't. The reason they don't work is down to the individuals and not their sexuality.

I've been married 32 years. I love my wife, she is precious and still precocious, but that ladder that you set out on together has slippery rungs. The instant passion of attraction is replaced over time with admiration and respect. We can still kindle the 'instant passion' but it demands both of us to make the effort, sometimes we're just happier sitting on the sofa holding hands.

I have a homosexual friend who changes partners every two years. Each time, it is the end of the world and we nurse him through the pain until he picks up his life. I have other homosexual friends who have been together for as long as I remember. Same with lesbian friends. But the worst friends - and friends they still remain - are 'straight couples' who break up, they are a right royal pain in the backside always ready to blame the other partner rather than look to their own faults. Why do my homosexual and lesbian friends see things so differently?

 

[Pure]

sayings:

"marriage is an institution. but who wants to live in an institution?"*



----

*guess i do.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/marriage.htm

 

[Liar]

I think there is, between a man and a woman, that magical moment of discovering a true, ‘soul mate’ to use the vernacular. It cannot happen, in all its’ fullness, in any other way, only between complimenting opposites, with the fullest range of potential,(progeny) and deserve the ultimate meaning of love.

Actually, instead of crying shennanigans at the top of my lungs, which is my gut level reaction, I think you're on to something there. The strongest testaments of love that I have seen have been between people who are different, im many regards opposites, and whose personalities happen to compliment each other.

The error you make is to assign too much value to what gender people are. Male or female, gay or straight, is just one of many factors that makes up an individual's personality. A gay couple can be just as diametrically yin yang as a straight one.

The Mars and Venus thing is mostly a fallacious cliché.

 

[Tuomas]

How come father-son relationships doen't get into this gay thing. I mean, I most definately love my father, and he love me, and we are both over age and "consenting".. the only thing is, we don't have sex. Great. So, because we don't have sex, we are denied all those rights that "gays" have, like ... uhm... errr, adopting children! Yeah! Why can't we adopt, eh?

I'm annoyed by the whole homosexual "lifestyle" thingie. Like they are somehow different from the rest of us. The only difference is the way they fuck! So stop it with the "gay pride" parades, the "lifestyle" and the "gay rights" (as if they had rights that everyone else doesn't have), and the whining of "they don't accept us for who we are". If your sexuality is what defines who you are, then you have a fucking problem. Litterally.

So, get off your peaching stool, start acting like a human being, and we can all get along. Being gay does not give you the right to be an asshole -much as you like them.

No, call me insensitive

 

[Liar]

How come father-son relationships doen't get into this gay thing. I mean, I most definately love my father, and he love me, and we are both over age and "consenting".. the only thing is, we don't have sex. Great. So, because we don't have sex, we are denied all those rights that "gays" have, like ... uhm... errr, adopting children! Yeah! Why can't we adopt, eh?

I think you should. I know a brother and sister who lived together all their adult life. (and no, there was nothing Lit-worthy going on, the brother was incredibly gay) But they didn't get the same legal rights as a married couple and couldn't as a couple, adopt a child. The sister adopted a kid on her own, who then grew up with "mommy" and "uncle", but her legal staus was that of a single mother.

I'd say, legal marriage (or civil union, whatever we wanna call it) should be a long term commitment between two (or more, but for simplicity, let's say two) consenting adult people. A contract that means they share certain rights, tax routines, inheritance rights and so on. And why not siblings or father and son, or best buddies with a platonic relationship? Anything that works and provides the sought after household stability.

If that's not the purpose of marriage, and romantic love and sex must be part of it, then we should quit mucking about and flat out call it a "fucking arrangement".

I'm annoyed by the whole homosexual "lifestyle" thingie. Like they are somehow different from the rest of us. The only difference is the way they fuck! So stop it with the "gay pride" parades, the "lifestyle" and the "gay rights" (as if they had rights that everyone else doesn't have), and the whining of "they don't accept us for who we are". If your sexuality is what defines who you are, then you have a fucking problem. Litterally.

Yeah... "gay rights" and "gay mariage" should just be called "equal rights" and "equal marriage". Because that's what it's about. Equality, not affirmative action. And all the gay pride iffs me. As a bisexual I'm kind of pressured by common expectations from both glbt-ers and "normies" to embrace it and shout my sexuality from the rooftops. Why? Cause I'm non-straight? Most straight people don't take every opportunity to let the world know how much they prefer penis-in-vagina action. And I really don't care to hear it.

But that being said, most of the time it's not the gays that defines who they are with their sexuality, but the homophobes who can't look past the Homo and see the Sapiens. The most common "gay agenda" has one point: Leave me alone.

 

[JamesSD]

Language is fluid, shapable, ever changing. Words don't have to mean the exact thing today as they did 20 years ago. Society moves, people learn, cultures adapt, rise and fall. Science advances understanding, and what we once considered "natural" is often discovered to be a misconception at best.

Absolutism is dead. The Baby Boomers wounded it deeply, and my Generation (Gen X/Gen Y), dealt the final blow. We understand that my reality isn't your reality, that what is best for me may not be best for you.

The world changes. We may be living at the greatest time in human history. And yet, the future may be better. I look back at the great defining struggles of the United States history: Abolition of Slavery, The defeat of Fascism and Nazism, Women's sufferage, The civil rights movement... we've gradually been building towards a Nation that achieves its promise of one of Liberty, Safety, and Equality.

I have little doubt that history will remember these times as the final dark hours before the light in the full acceptance and recognition of homosexuals.

Younger people are far far more accepting of gay marriage. While many will become more conservative as they age, many will maintain their views. To many of the World War II generation, interracial marriage was "unnatural". To most boomers and younger, it may be an oddity, but it is accepted.

Gay marriage will be fully recognized within my lifetime. It's not "if", it's "when".

 

[amicus]

"...Language is fluid, shapable, ever changing. Words don't have to mean the exact thing today as they did 20 years ago. Society moves, people learn, cultures adapt, rise and fall. Science advances understanding, and what we once considered "natural" is often discovered to be a misconception at best...."

~~~~~

Well, James, a partial truth at best...but not exactly my point as we all know things do change on the surface and with the passage of time and new discoveries; that is pretty much a 'given' in any discussion.

But in referring to something such as 'marriage', that ultimate relationship between a man and a woman, the joining of two family lines, the coming together of two past histories that will continue the lines of both forward; that relationship, we call it marriage, is unchanging in basic concept.

And while you may say that language and meanings change over time, it doesn't mean you have a corner on truth, nor even a window into it and you may even be mostly wrong. Transcending all the different tongues spoken through all time, the concepts remain the same and I am sure you know that many of the words we use today in the 21st century have roots all the way back to Greek and Latin and even before.

My point is not a difficult one unless you are corrupting the concept of language and meaning just to satisfy a political opinion even if it means disregarding truth and integrity. Human language accurately describes marriage and thousands of other concepts thousands of years ago that remain unchanged to this day.

And who is to say what the future holds? You may be right, you may be entirely wrong and history, a thousand years from now may look back at experiments in gay marriage and homosexual rights and even emancipation of women and blacks as a totally wrong direction.

amicus...

 

[Oblimo]

And please, please, at least scan the links provided, ( or find your own) to get an overview.

Don't. Abridged dictionaries and wiki-freakin-pedia are useless to understand this topic.

You need research the legislative and common law history of marriage in this country to understand what the debate is about. It's a legal debate, a very technical one at that, and the legal definition of marriage have absosmurfly nothing in common with what you'd read in a dictionary.

 

[Belegon]

I most definately love my father, and he love me

Juan, is that you?

 

[amicus]

Oblimo]Don't. Abridged dictionaries and wiki-freakin-pedia are useless to understand this topic.

You need research the legislative and common law history of marriage in this country to understand what the debate is about. It's a legal debate, a very technical one at that, and the legal definition of marriage have absosmurfly nothing in common with what you'd read in a dictionary.

[/I]

~~~~~

Overlooking your tone, Oblimo, you quite miss my point.

Definitions and laws are merely codifications of human behavior, wants and needs. A 'good' civilization will reflect those basic values and act to protect them. I am suggesting looking outside the box of the world of Beaurocrats and CPA's, people who function within a system and exist by enforced rules.

I was suggesting that the true relationship of marriage, throughout human history has had a purposeful and functioning motivation, basically that of enhancing family values from the base of man, woman, child to a wider community familiar with those values and appreciative to them.

You seem to display the mindset that many Europeans carry as baggage, functioning as the Church or the State or the current PTB demands.

I was hoping for a little original thinking here.

amicus...