"The Definition of Marriage"--why does it mean so much?

[Champion Lance]

It's important to remember that "tyrant" did not originally have the negative connotation we give it today; in Ancient Greece, when the word was invented, it simply meant "ruler" or "leader."

This is not true. A τυραννος was a man who had seized power through atypical means--that is, non-hereditary. His power could either come from the soldiery (depending on the city-state in question, obviously) or from the peasant or merchant classes. A tyrant was not a legitimate ruler, and they were bitterly opposed by royals and aristocrats alike.

The word was still seen as a term of abuse, at least by the better sort. Certainly a peasant might well champion a tyrant, but to be called one by your political opponent would not be a good thing at all.

Certainly, the term lays no aspersions on the quality of one's rule and in that case you might argue the term is different, but that's suspect as well. Certainly, an aristocrat might argue that a tyrant is unfit to rule simply because he lacks the erudition and training required of a ruler--this, as much as "spreading power," was often the aristocratic complaint of tyranny.

It certainly doesn't just mean "leader." You might have mistaken it with αρχων--this is a common mistake. Words that might appear to mean similar things carry a great deal of significance, and that has to be negotiated before employing them.

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" plainly speaks to a more modern, post-Roman understanding of the term, where tyranny represents unjust, arbitrary, and inequitable rule. However it acquires a delicious shift in meaning when thought of with the more archaic definition, especially in terms of the gay marriage discussion.

Consider, for example, the CA Supreme Court case that led to the Proposition 8 fiasco. The Court plainly felt that it was not within the People's sovereignty to circumscribe a social convention. It's been some time since I've read the majority opinion, but I recall that their argument was based on a read right to "happiness" and "self-affirmation" in the state constitution rather than any concerns about equal protection, given that the CA civil unions had the same privileges.

This is very interesting, because whatever one's opinion on the social institution and the pointlessly irrelevant discussion on history of the word (as opposed to the construct it names), equal protection has been one of the strongest arguments proponents of gay marriage have employed. Now to what extent certain tax privileges are applicable to partners incapable of breeding is debatable, but since these privileges apply to childless and infertile couples as well, I'd think this was the strongest legal argument for allowing gay marriage.

The CA SC did not have to contend with that, and still ruled that there was a right to marriage irrespective of legal privileges. It's a rejection of the populace's ability to make decisions on that regard because the court found them unsuitable to properly protect the rights of a minority--in other words, this was a tyranny by both reckonings of the term.

 

[ShinyFlareon]

Psh. All I got taught in MY Sex Ed classes was that if I had sex before marriage, I was a stupid person and would get AIDS like Magic Johnson.

I personally LOATHED the tactics used by the "Yes on Prop 8" campaign, my personal opinion on the matter aside. Obvious scare tactics weren't even the worst of it. I live in a pretty conservative town, and almost every day, there would be a group of Prop 8 supporters out on the corner of a major intersection holding signs. Did I mention they had their young children holding most of the signs? Children that hardly looked any older than six? And later on during the campaign, some woman was going around our neighborhood sending her daughter -- who couldn't have been older than eight -- up to people's doors soliciting "Yes on 8" flyers.

Leave your children out of politics. I don't give a rat's ass what you believe, that's your belief, and you're entitled to it. But using your children to distribute your belief is just wrong.

@Champion Lance: Thanks for the word correction...I was quoting that fact from one of my professors, but it's perfectly likely that I remembered it incorrectly. But I WAS referring to the quality of one's rule, and not the manner in which it was obtained.

 

[Satoshi-chan]

I've never gotten the "it'll mean that children will learn about homosexuality" thing. One, so what? and two, we don't really learn about heterosexuality, at least not directly. Even sex ed, at least when I had it, was more "here's what you do" and not a word about whatever partner we would have.

Anyways, kids learn about homosexuality long before sex ed. I heard kids being called "gay" and "fags" on the playground as early as the earlier parts of elementary school. Anyone who didn't know what homosexuality was learned very quickly this way.

 

[7tx]

"Civil Unions" were legalized in New Zealand a few years ago and nothing at all changed in the school system or really anything else - except for the obvious fact that a man could legally have a husband and a woman have a wife. I think the issue is there are a large amount of ignorant old people who are voting on what their religion says, not on what is obviously morally right.

 

[Covet]

I think the issue is there are a large amount of ignorant old people who are voting on what their religion says, not on what is obviously morally right.

But, based on their religion, they ARE voting for what [they feel] is "obviously morally right."

IMO, the issue is that people are forcing their opinions on others in order to take/keep rights away from fellow Americans.

 

[Phoenicks]

The way I see marriage... it's a commitment before God. Not everyone here is religious, but that is the way I view marriage. To me, marriage is a commitment before God stating your true devotion to your partner. The specifics have changed throughout time, yet the element of appealing to God in your relationship has always remained.

Well... almost always remained. As the recent wave of Atheisism has spread, the idea of God has been somewhat replaced. You can debate over what God has been replaced with, but marriage is more now about the legal rights that it comes with.

Really, when people claim that civil unions are as good as marriages, it is because the element of God has been removed from the debate.

Feel free to disagree with me, but I feel that God is inherently part of the definition, and that marriage as marriage loses meaning when you take God out of the equation.

Just one thing I'd like to say off-topic:

But basically...pure democracy, the kind that the US is striving for (and at times claims to possess), is quite possibly one of the most inefficient ways to run a government. It assumes that every last member of it's population who is eligible to vote has a thorough, unbiased knowledge of events, and will vote, not in accordance with their personal opinions on the matter, but according to what is best for the state. In the US, of course, we're lucky if we can get 30% of registered voters to come out and vote for presidents, and those figures are much smaller for more regional officials, like governors or mayors (who actually have a much bigger impact on the daily lives of the voters).

The U.S. isn't a pure democracy, or striving to be one. We're a Democratic Republic. There are specific parts of our Constitution that prevent it from being a true-blue Democracy (Where the majority can do whatever they want). The Bill of Rights, to the Presidential Veto, to the Senatorial necessities for 60 votes are all safeguards that prevent us from having a pure democracy.

 

[Koji-Kun]

Leave your children out of politics.[/b] I don't give a rat's ass what you believe, that's your belief, and you're entitled to it. But using your children to distribute your belief is just wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree with you my friend.

See, a good friend of mine is bisexual and he's part of boy scouts. And i know you aren't supposed to be "gay" in the scouts, but they've sorta started a dont ask dont tell policy.

And when he went to scouts during Prop 8, they gave all the boys Yes on 8 flyers and stationed them in the mall to give them out.

Personally, i loathed that with all my heart. How dare they? It's a political campaign that they are using cute little boy scouts (and the older ones like that friend) against the people, without their consent. He had to ditch scouts to not give out the flyers. They didn't say "would you like to pass these out?" No. They handed them the flyers and told them to. Which i believe, regardless of if it was for yes or no on 8, is morally wrong.

 

[ShinyFlareon]

The U.S. isn't a pure democracy, or striving to be one. We're a Democratic Republic. There are specific parts of our Constitution that prevent it from being a true-blue Democracy (Where the majority can do whatever they want). The Bill of Rights, to the Presidential Veto, to the Senatorial necessities for 60 votes are all safeguards that prevent us from having a pure democracy.

I knew that typing what I did before...I just felt like adding it in would have been too wordy, and stray from my original point. A lot of times I see the US claim itself to be a pure democracy, even though it's not...but that's a subject for another thread.

IMO, the issue is that people are forcing their opinions on others in order to take/keep rights away from fellow Americans.

But see, that works both ways. To people who do not support making marriage legal to gay couples, WE as supporters of that proposition are, in their eyes, forcing OUR opinion on THEM. I agree on the issue of rights -- the right to have a partnership be treated as equal under the law, whether it be between a man and a woman or two people of the same gender, is something I believe no one should be denied. However, put yourself in their shoes. Presume, for just a moment, that you, for whatever reason, do not believe gay people should have marriages in the same sense as straight couples. Now, imagine coming to a place like this, where it seems like everyone -- or at least, the loudest majority -- is telling you that your beliefs are wrong. Personally, I congratulate Arcane Mind for consistently standing up to argue his beliefs, however much I disagree with them.

There's a saying about throwing stones in glass houses...

 

[Ho-oh]

I wholeheartedly agree with you my friend.

See, a good friend of mine is bisexual and he's part of boy scouts. And i know you aren't supposed to be "gay" in the scouts, but they've sorta started a dont ask dont tell policy.

And when he went to scouts during Prop 8, they gave all the boys Yes on 8 flyers and stationed them in the mall to give them out.

Personally, i loathed that with all my heart. How dare they? It's a political campaign that they are using cute little boy scouts (and the older ones like that friend) against the people, without their consent. He had to ditch scouts to not give out the flyers. They didn't say "would you like to pass these out?" No. They handed them the flyers and told them to. Which i believe, regardless of if it was for yes or no on 8, is morally wrong.

Wait, prop 8 was the bill that was against gay marriage in California, right?

 

[Misty]

Yes.

 

[ShinyFlareon]

Wait, prop 8 was the bill that was against gay marriage in California, right?

Specifically...Prop 8 was a proposition to overturn a ruling made earlier by the California Supreme Court. In 200...1, I think, there was a proposition called Prop 22, which was a motion to ban gay marriage. This was challenged by the courts and overturned. So Prop 8 was a proposition to overturn something that had already been overturned.

 

[Covet]

But see, that works both ways. To people who do not support making marriage legal to gay couples, WE as supporters of that proposition are, in their eyes, forcing OUR opinion on THEM. I agree on the issue of rights -- the right to have a partnership be treated as equal under the law, whether it be between a man and a woman or two people of the same gender, is something I believe no one should be denied. However, put yourself in their shoes. Presume, for just a moment, that you, for whatever reason, do not believe gay people should have marriages in the same sense as straight couples. Now, imagine coming to a place like this, where it seems like everyone -- or at least, the loudest majority -- is telling you that your beliefs are wrong. Personally, I congratulate Arcane Mind for consistently standing up to argue his beliefs, however much I disagree with them.

There's a saying about throwing stones in glass houses...

That would be a completely fair statement except for the fact that the opinions involve restricting rights granted to everyone else. That is the key part to that phrase. It is blatant discrimination. This is not a "throwing stones in glass houses" situation.

 

[Phoenicks]

Covet, I'm slightly amused. It's almost as though you're telling someone that their opinion is wrong. I'm sure you didn't mean that. :loopy:

 

[Satoshi-chan]

The only solution at the moment would be to completely do away with the term "marriage" when it comes to the legally binding contract, and call them all unions or whatnot, and allow the churches be the only ones to perform "marriage ceremonies," which would just be church based. This way, we could actually see legal fairness with a legally binding contract that could actually apply to both gays and straights, and the churches could continue marrying whoever they wish (which includes gay couples in many churches).

As of now though, this is allowing legal discrimination of an entire group of human beings, allowing legal discrimination of any church who willingly performs marriage ceremonies for gay couples, and further bloats big government with having two separate outlines of benefits granted to people who have a "marriage," and people who have a "civil union."

 

[Phoenicks]

I could get on board with that.

Provided of course, that the whole system regarding divorces et al. isn't altered (significantly - still waiting for some gender-based changes) and that people who are currently married are automatically given 'domestic partnership entitlements' or 'civil union status' or whatever.

 

[Covet]

Edo was simply trying to get me to see the other side of the story. Fine. I can agree that it goes both ways in that both sides are pushing their opinions on each other, but that's where the validity of the argument ends. The reason is because one side is blatantly discriminating to keep rights, rights THEY are afforded, away from fellow Americans. If equal rights were not involved in any way, shape or form, then I'd be more inclined to debate ideas.

If people want to imply that I am saying those who disagree with me on this topic are wrong, I am fine with that and don't care enough to defend myself further.

ETA: I would/will wholeheartedly support Sato's suggestion (I believe someone else mentioned something similar in "The Gays" thread). Perhaps we should start a movement.

 

[Satoshi-chan]

I could get on board with that.

Provided of course, that the whole system regarding divorces et al. isn't altered (significantly - still waiting for some gender-based changes) and that people who are currently married are automatically given 'domestic partnership entitlements' or 'civil union status' or whatever.

Indeed, the only way I could ever accept this would be if anyone who currently had a "marriage" could keep that under the new name. Although what I propose is just a renaming of the legally binding contract, and not an entirely new system (because this could prove to be messy, and would get tied up for way too long in devising how it would work). Keep the fact that a justice of peace, priest, whatnot still gives the vows, but change the paperwork's name to reflect that it is legally named whatever non-marriage name is given to it. If a church wants to call it a marriage ceremony still, that's their thing. If marriage is such an important word to the church, they can keep it. At least I feel that this would be the easiest way to do so.

My only concern is that if this were to ever happen, there would be scare tactics used by some groups to make it look like something that it wasn't, but who knows, maybe it would be accepted with open arms.

On a different note: I swear I've heard the term "marriage" being used for the combination of different metals before. I wonder why this isn't protested as well?

 

[Koji-Kun]

The only solution at the moment would be to completely do away with the term "marriage" when it comes to the legally binding contract, and call them all unions or whatnot, and allow the churches be the only ones to perform "marriage ceremonies," which would just be church based. This way, we could actually see legal fairness with a legally binding contract that could actually apply to both gays and straights, and the churches could continue marrying whoever they wish (which includes gay couples in many churches).

As of now though, this is allowing legal discrimination of an entire group of human beings, allowing legal discrimination of any church who willingly performs marriage ceremonies for gay couples, and further bloats big government with having two separate outlines of benefits granted to people who have a "marriage," and people who have a "civil union."

Thing is... this is an amazing idea, and i know a lot of people who support it.

But it'll never fly with the people who enjoy being higher class citizens. Like, Marriage is a term that makes you "better" than Domestic Partnerships, at least in some people's eyes. And they'd never go for it. It makes the most sense in what people SAY their reasons are... but it won't fly simply because of the unspoken reasons people don't want gay marriage.

Though i completely agree. It's the answer to this problem. It just won't happen anytime soon...

 

[Blackjack Gabbiani]

On a different note: I swear I've heard the term "marriage" being used for the combination of different metals before. I wonder why this isn't protested as well?

Not to mention anyone who's spent time in a diner has heard someone tell a waitress to "marry" the ketchup bottles (ie, to put them snout to snout in order to pour a half-full bottle into another half-full bottle to make a full bottle).

 

[ShinyFlareon]

But it'll never fly with the people who enjoy being higher class citizens. Like, Marriage is a term that makes you "better" than Domestic Partnerships, at least in some people's eyes. And they'd never go for it. It makes the most sense in what people SAY their reasons are... but it won't fly simply because of the unspoken reasons people don't want gay marriage.

Seriously, Koji, chill it. Not everyone who believes marriage is something sacred and don't support gay couples having marriages subconsciously thinks that they're better than everyone else. Mostly, it seems that they would just prefer that something they see as a moral wrong be kept out of something they find sacred; hence, where Satoshi's solution, or something similar, could hypothetically come into play.