|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
luckylady
Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Location: u.s. of occupied territories
|
 Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 10:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Marriage laws started as a way to discriminate against racial groups in the US and they are still used primarily as a tool for social control and discrimination by the Federal and various State governments. |
are you seriously for real? or you just haven't ever read a history book that goes back prior to the 1900's?
marriage historically was about property rights - and women, later children as well, were considered chattel, or property, of the husband. this is LONG before the U.S. was ever conceived, let alone formed.
historically in the u.s., a widow might not have even inherited her husband's property and could easily have become destitute upon her husband's death.
racial divides (as pertaining to marriage) came later but marriage itself has always been about power, property and ownership.
as a society, we (or some of us anyway) have evolved this concept into a partnership based on mutual love and respect and even more progressive, the concept that both partners are equal in the relationship, both in the eyes of the law as well as under whatever religious beliefs (or not) the couple chose to accept.
moreover, it is people who write the laws that become part of our government. to blather about govt as if it is a "thing" which takes action on its own, with no human control whatsoever, is quite foolish indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| luckylady wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Marriage laws started as a way to discriminate against racial groups in the US and they are still used primarily as a tool for social control and discrimination by the Federal and various State governments. |
are you seriously for real? or you just haven't ever read a history book that goes back prior to the 1900's?
marriage historically was about property rights - and women, later children as well, were considered chattel, or property, of the husband. this is LONG before the U.S. was ever conceived, let alone formed.
historically in the u.s., a widow might not have even inherited her husband's property and could easily have become destitute upon her husband's death.
racial divides (as pertaining to marriage) came later but marriage itself has always been about power, property and ownership.
as a society, we (or some of us anyway) have evolved this concept into a partnership based on mutual love and respect and even more progressive, the concept that both partners are equal in the relationship, both in the eyes of the law as well as under whatever religious beliefs (or not) the couple chose to accept.
moreover, it is people who write the laws that become part of our government. to blather about govt as if it is a "thing" which takes action on its own, with no human control whatsoever, is quite foolish indeed. |
Are you seriously for real?
We are discussing here the detrimental effects of government being involved in marriage. Historically marriage was a private matter between individuals with social control exerted by custom and religion. The State began its usurpation of liberty and intrusion into this private matter to prevent the variety of relationships that free individuals might choose and to assert control over individuals. The first reasons were to prohibit interracial marriage and plural marriage.
The lack of rights of women to own property, and the lack of rights of men as well, other than those who were considered "free men," was separate from marriage. Women did not lose their natural rights because they were married. Rather, the natural rights of all human beings have not been long recognized by anyone, other than Libertarians, and certainly not by those with power.
Here is a bit from Wiki ... for you to understand this issue would require reading books that are not available on line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license
| Quote: |
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple�s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows�even without witnesses�the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
State courts in the United States have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.[1] Marriage license application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-19th century. Some are available dating from the 17th century in colonial America.[2]
But marriage licenses were not required until after the civil war.
[1] Marriage licenses from their inception have sought to establish certain prohibitions on the institution of marriage. These prohibitions have changed throughout history. In the 1920s, they were used by 38 states to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos without a state approved license.[1] At least 32 nations have established significant prohibitions on same-sex marriage.[3] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luckylady
Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Location: u.s. of occupied territories
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| luckylady wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Marriage laws started as a way to discriminate against racial groups in the US and they are still used primarily as a tool for social control and discrimination by the Federal and various State governments. |
are you seriously for real? or you just haven't ever read a history book that goes back prior to the 1900's?
marriage historically was about property rights - and women, later children as well, were considered chattel, or property, of the husband. this is LONG before the U.S. was ever conceived, let alone formed.
historically in the u.s., a widow might not have even inherited her husband's property and could easily have become destitute upon her husband's death.
racial divides (as pertaining to marriage) came later but marriage itself has always been about power, property and ownership.
as a society, we (or some of us anyway) have evolved this concept into a partnership based on mutual love and respect and even more progressive, the concept that both partners are equal in the relationship, both in the eyes of the law as well as under whatever religious beliefs (or not) the couple chose to accept.
moreover, it is people who write the laws that become part of our government. to blather about govt as if it is a "thing" which takes action on its own, with no human control whatsoever, is quite foolish indeed. |
Are you seriously for real?
We are discussing here the detrimental effects of government being involved in marriage. Historically marriage was a private matter between individuals with social control exerted by custom and religion. The State began its usurpation of liberty and intrusion into this private matter to prevent the variety of relationships that free individuals might choose and to assert control over individuals. The first reasons were to prohibit interracial marriage and plural marriage.
The lack of rights of women to own property, and the lack of rights of men as well, other than those who were considered "free men," was separate from marriage. Women did not lose their natural rights because they were married. Rather, the natural rights of all human beings have not been long recognized by anyone, other than Libertarians, and certainly not by those with power.
Here is a bit from Wiki ... for you to understand this issue would require reading books that are not available on line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license
| Quote: |
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple�s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows�even without witnesses�the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
State courts in the United States have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.[1] Marriage license application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-19th century. Some are available dating from the 17th century in colonial America.[2]
But marriage licenses were not required until after the civil war.
[1] Marriage licenses from their inception have sought to establish certain prohibitions on the institution of marriage. These prohibitions have changed throughout history. In the 1920s, they were used by 38 states to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos without a state approved license.[1] At least 32 nations have established significant prohibitions on same-sex marriage.[3] |
|
as is usual - you skirt the obvious point I made - as well as the even more obvious - how can any contract exist, be enforced, etc., in today's society - anywhere meaning globally - without govt oversight? a contract, duh, is a LEGAL document which means, again DUH, it comes under the provisions of the government.
to make it plain- we live in a world with government and in the U.S., part of the power of the (federal) government is to protect the rights of its people - be they gay, straight, or somewhere in-between. only some individuals don't especially like that idea so they try to make specific laws that unsurp those powers.
people like you - who blather on about bad govt and out of control govt when the truth of the matter is, you really want govt to do the bidding of a few select individuals, and by doing so, take away people's rights, not protect them.
moreover, try and do a little better with your feminist theory than to resort to a wikipedia article on marriage licenses - it's foolish to try and claim such a source as a feeble attempt to rebuttal what is historically accurate - that marriage was predominantly a method of obtaining property - including women - and gaining power - as I mentioned. in fact, this is still the case which is no doubt, why the Repubs and Baggers are against it - stability in the gay community would leach power away from the right wing extremists even more so than it is now in the tek industry and creative arts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Has anyone ever given this any thought?
1) If marriage is a religious institution defined by biblical principles then the government has no authority to establish marriage as the only legally recognized civil union (Congress shall make now law repeating an establishment of religion (1st Amendment)).
2) If the government is going to define marriage and thus the benefits thereof, such as tax rates, healthcare, survivor benefits, etc� then it cannot restrict those privileges to certain citizens (No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of it's citizens of the United States (14th Amendment)).
So, the government is bound by the constitution to either:
1) Butt out of marriage entirely. Legally recognize the civil union of any two consenting adults and relegate marriage to a religious institution that individuals can enter into if they so choose. And religious groups, as is their freedom, can define marriage and restrict it to whomever they choose.
2) Lift the restrictions on marriage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| luckylady wrote: |
| people like you - who blather on about bad govt and out of control govt when the truth of the matter is, you really want govt to do the bidding of a few select individuals, and by doing so, take away people's rights, not protect them. |
There are a lot of things I'd like to say in response to this. But perhaps I should just say that you need to explain a little bit more.
| Here's what I (and likely other Libertarians here) propose: wrote: |
Governments stop using the word "marriage" entirely and renounce the use of tax benefits to benefit some lifestyles over others.
Governments continue their role as enforcer of contracts.
People are free to enter into any contract they so choose, and may call said contracts "marriage" or "soul-binding" or whatever the hell they want. Long-term contracts involving finance and/or reproduction would be in a "civil union" class.
"Spousal visas" could be issued to one eligible signer of a "civil union" class of contract.
Conflicts between signers of a "civil union" class contract would first be resolved by the contract's stipulations. Failing that, they'd be resolved case-by-case just as custody, visitation rights, etc. are now. |
So please tell me, Luckylady, how in the hell would that serve to "take away people's rights"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| luckylady wrote: |
| people like you - who blather on about bad govt and out of control govt when the truth of the matter is, you really want govt to do the bidding of a few select individuals, and by doing so, take away people's rights, not protect them. |
There are a lot of things I'd like to say in response to this. But perhaps I should just say that you need to explain a little bit more.
| Here's what I (and likely other Libertarians here) propose: wrote: |
Governments stop using the word "marriage" entirely and renounce the use of tax benefits to benefit some lifestyles over others.
Governments continue their role as enforcer of contracts.
People are free to enter into any contract they so choose, and may call said contracts "marriage" or "soul-binding" or whatever the hell they want. Long-term contracts involving finance and/or reproduction would be in a "civil union" class.
"Spousal visas" could be issued to one eligible signer of a "civil union" class of contract.
Conflicts between signers of a "civil union" class contract would first be resolved by the contract's stipulations. Failing that, they'd be resolved case-by-case just as custody, visitation rights, etc. are now. |
So please tell me, Luckylady, how in the hell would that serve to "take away people's rights"? |
What you are arguing for is basically what the government already does, except that instead of calling it a civil union they call it marriage. Why add the extra step, with the signing and writing of a contract, that will only serve to waste time and only really benefit lawyers looking for more clients. While not taking away rights necessarily, it would be cumbersome, and frankly dumb as well as politically untenable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| While not taking away rights necessarily, it would be cumbersome, and frankly dumb as well as politically untenable. |
And yet, giving people a convenient way to enter into a religious union isn't the government's job. So "cumbersome" and "dumb" as it may be, it's fair and non-partial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| What you are arguing for is basically what the government already does, except that instead of calling it a civil union they call it marriage. |
I'm fairly certain that's exactly what he's been arguing, and, if it's not, then it's exactly what I've been arguing. Most people nowadays are fine with homosexuals having marriages complete with rights and benefits... it's just that some people don't want them called as such. The debate now (for most people at least) isn't one of rights and benefits; it's one of a religious term, 'marriage.'
| Quote: |
| Why add the extra step, with the signing and writing of a contract, that will only serve to waste time and only really benefit lawyers looking for more clients. |
You misunderstand. State-recognized marriages and civil unions are currently treated as contracts, so continuing to treat them as contracts would not be an extra step.
| Quote: |
| While not taking away rights necessarily, it would be cumbersome, and frankly dumb as well as politically untenable. |
No longer having the state recognize any civil unions as marriages would not take any rights away (dunno why you threw the "necessarily" in there), it would only be cumbersome in the short term if paperwork overhauls of government records are demanded (which would be silly), and it is the only approach that doesn't step on the religious beliefs of anyone (religious homosexuals can get 'married,' and religious homophobes can refuse to recognize the union as a marriage). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| What you are arguing for is basically what the government already does, except that instead of calling it a civil union they call it marriage. |
I'm fairly certain that's exactly what he's been arguing, and, if it's not, then it's exactly what I've been arguing. Most people nowadays are fine with homosexuals having marriages complete with rights and benefits... it's just that some people don't want them called as such. The debate now (for most people at least) isn't one of rights and benefits; it's one of a religious term, 'marriage.'
| Quote: |
| Why add the extra step, with the signing and writing of a contract, that will only serve to waste time and only really benefit lawyers looking for more clients. |
You misunderstand. State-recognized marriages and civil unions are currently treated as contracts, so continuing to treat them as contracts would not be an extra step.
| Quote: |
| While not taking away rights necessarily, it would be cumbersome, and frankly dumb as well as politically untenable. |
No longer having the state recognize any civil unions as marriages would not take any rights away (dunno why you threw the "necessarily" in there), it would only be cumbersome in the short term if paperwork overhauls of government records are demanded (which would be silly), and it is the only approach that doesn't step on the religious beliefs of anyone (religious homosexuals can get 'married,' and religious homophobes can refuse to recognize the union as a marriage). |
Marriage isn't a religious term. So I don't see what you or he are advocating as any different than what already exists. If you think that the religious fundamentalists will be alright with people getting the same rights through a civil union if they are gay, then you don't really seem to understand their fundamentalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| While not taking away rights necessarily, it would be cumbersome, and frankly dumb as well as politically untenable. |
And yet, giving people a convenient way to enter into a religious union isn't the government's job. So "cumbersome" and "dumb" as it may be, it's fair and non-partial. |
Marriage isn't fundamentally a religious issue, it's just the fundamentalists who made it one. Atheists get married all the time, so I still don't see your point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Marriage isn't a religious term. |
If marriage isn't a religious term, then no other word is either. Historically, nearly every culture has performed marriage rites through religious ceremony (and the very few instances I can think of that go against this show cultures that accept pledges of marriage at the couples' words, but this change usually only occurred as a result of religious strife). Only recently have marriages been conducted entirely outside of religious boundaries.
So yes, historically, marriage is a religious term.
| Quote: |
| Atheists get married all the time, so I still don't see your point. |
I sense paranoia from you. This isn't an attempt to steal marriage from the non-religious or otherly-religious. It's simply an attempt to separate government from a religious term to avoid the stupidity of the debate we're seeing on TV right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Marriage isn't a religious term. |
If marriage isn't a religious term, then no other word is either. Historically, nearly every culture has performed marriage rites through religious ceremony (and the very few instances I can think of that go against this show cultures that accept pledges of marriage at the couples' words, but this change usually only occurred as a result of religious strife). Only recently have marriages been conducted entirely outside of religious boundaries.
So yes, historically, marriage is a religious term.
| Quote: |
| Atheists get married all the time, so I still don't see your point. |
I sense paranoia from you. This isn't an attempt to steal marriage from the non-religious or otherly-religious. It's simply an attempt to separate government from a religious term to avoid the stupidity of the debate we're seeing on TV right now. |
Its not paranoia, it's saying why bother redefining a term, that despite having religious connotations, isn't in and of itself religious. For example, even godless communists states had marriage, and which state doesn't have marriage as a legal function provided by the government? If all that will change is the name, then what really is the point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
The only problem with marriage is that government is involved. We need to get and keep the government out. The only role for government is in breach of contract cases in court, and even those types of cases should be encouraged to go through arbitration, counseling and private court services before seeking out the coercive power of the State.
The Government marriage contract is a "one-size-fits-all" problem posing as a solution. It is bad policy. It is guaranteed to fail in a majority of cases. And we can see the results today - the Government meddling in this relationship between couples and among individuals fails in a majority of cases.
All marriage type contracts must be private. Written by the parties, or borrowed from religious groups and others who will create and promote various marriage type arrangements according to their own wishes.
Under such a system, the people will be free. Free to choose. Free to be gay or lesbian and have their desired relationship. Free to enter into one of an infinite variety of contracts that could be viewed as a standard male-female marriage. And other variations, including plural marriage, would be allowed.
The types or marriage relationships individuals choose are none of the government's business ... ever!
Government is the problem.
Liberty is the answer.
Only Libertarians respect the liberty and the freedom to choose of all peaceful individuals in society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
Why would gay people want to get married in a homophobic church? Also the church just provides the ceremony and the officiating, they are not necessary for marriage as many people get married with out the help of religious groups. I can't imagine the church being legally required to do marriages they don't wish too. If you are thinking about the Catholic healthcare debate, that is completely different as it deals with the church as an employer, rather than a religious group. |
No one said they would , but some would want to force their views
on churches who are opposed to gay marriage through the use of anti-hate laws etc.
The fear is that gov't would in effect force all churches to comply or shut
their doors, whether or not anyone actually wanted to get married there or not is beside the point.
We've already got absurdities like this going on:
http://forum.canadianparents.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=112766
So now parents are supposed to "educate" their children with this garbage
starting right in kindergarten. Sparkling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| The Government marriage contract is a "one-size-fits-all" problem posing as a solution. It is bad policy. It is guaranteed to fail in a majority of cases. And we can see the results today - the Government meddling in this relationship between couples and among individuals fails in a majority of cases. |
Beautiful post.
| some waygug-in wrote: |
The fear is that gov't would in effect force all churches to comply or shut
their doors, whether or not anyone actually wanted to get married there or not is beside the point. |
And that's completely ridiculous. Separation of church and state cuts both ways. "Some people" will always want to impose their views on others using the government. In fact, it's a more accepted practice now than at any point in American history. Freedom is the most difficult path to take. It's much easier to say "Oh, I want things to be this way, so I'll get the government to make it that way". But that leads to the constant degradation of liberty as one group after another gets laws passed that make everyone do things their way.
America used to be about doing things your own way, be it in your marriage, your vices, or your church. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
