Is it fair..?

[kopilo]

This is a highly moral based thread, so please take note of that when responding, as in there may be no incorrect answers...

Given that homosexuality has been looked down upon by society and basically up until recent times has been treated as a disorder, etc.

Is it fair to keep the 'traditional' meaning of a wedding (union of a man and a woman), when the potential for other types of (official) weddings in the past seem to have been somewhat impossible...

As in: is it appropiate to not allow homosexual marrieges because of past tradition?

 

[ebia]

what?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

 

[Ryal Kane]

The image of the 'traditional' marriage is itself a relatively recent cultural phenomenon, as are attitudes towards homosexuality. While some cultures adhere to the 'one man/one homan' and 'homosexuality is evil' models, there are others in which polygamy is quite natural and homosexuality is commonly accepted.

That said, I'm not quite sure as to the nature of your question. Are you refering to something like interracial marriage, which a century ago would have been immoral and illegal but now is unquestioned? Definitions of words change over time, and vary from person to person. They vary even more perhaps in definition of law.

I see no problem at all with a legal marriage between partners of the same gender. Religious marriage is up to the church in question.

Personally I don't plan on marriage. Common law relationships after three or four years have the same effect here. Other than that it's just a ceremony. Personal choice of course.

 

[Moros]

Is it fair to say we want to keep the 'traditional' meaning of a wedding (union of a man and a woman), when the potential for other types of (official) weddings in the past seem to have been somewhat impossible...

If I am reading you correctly, I am to understand that it is not fair to keep to the tradition because the playing field is not even, that is to say, historically, gay marriages were not allowed, so society never got a chance to get used to them, or somesuch. No?

 

[kopilo]

If I am reading you correctly, I am to understand that it is not fair to keep to the tradition because the playing field is not even, that is to say, historically, gay marriages were not allowed, so society never got a chance to get used to them, or somesuch. No?

yay, that's the question I am asking

 

[kopilo]

what?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Sorry, I am trying to make it more clear...

 

[dr.p]

Is it fair to keep the 'traditional' meaning of a wedding (union of a man and a woman), when the potential for other types of (official) weddings in the past seem to have been somewhat impossible...

As in: is it appropiate to not allow homosexual marrieges because of past tradition?

It depends on where the meaning is considered, doesn't it?

If in government (secular,) then it is not appropriate if it infringes upon the rights outlined by a particular government. That is what judges and officials and so on are for.

If in Christianity / Judaism, scripture is to be held sacred, and not changed. God is the judge. The beliefs and what they are built on should be clung to, and only changed at the discretion of the Lord God, as God is the Highest Authority. Therefore, His followers should do as He commands, regardless of what anyone else commands.

If in society at large, it entirely depends on people's individual views. "Appropriate" and "fair," as I'm sure you know well, all too often get thrown out the window. Some people will think it appropriate, some will not.

 

[MJ421]

Nine.

 

[Spinrad]

I am sick of tradition, period. I think a great and painful purge needs to take place where tradition, heritage, and any other remnant worship is tossed out and we decide as a species what really matters.

 

[FSTDT]

As in: is it appropiate to not allow homosexual marrieges because of past tradition?

Not only have there many many types of marriages, and the man + woman definition is something of a more recent invention, but no one who uses that argument actually believes there is something sacred about tradition.

Take a look behind the jargon of that type of argument, its not an argument for tradition, its a red herring to distract people away from the anti-gay prejudice that forms the backbone of that argument. In my experience, the "traditional marriage" line is just another way stating "I disapprove of homosexuality".

But, since you asked, the argument from "tradition" is nothing more than a naturalistic fallacy: in other words, its a fallacious argument that states "the way things are implies the way they ought to be", and its an ethical no-no to derive any "ought" from an "is".

 

[Arnold_Philips]

I generally have little respect for tradition. Just because something worked for people in the past doesn't mean it has the same application today.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

The image of the 'traditional' marriage is itself a relatively recent cultural phenomenon, as are attitudes towards homosexuality. While some cultures adhere to the 'one man/one homan' and 'homosexuality is evil' models, there are others in which polygamy is quite natural and homosexuality is commonly accepted.

The prominence of homosexuality in other nations, even in history, is not to be confused with homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage is a very new thing, therefore "traditional marriage" is a new term, as marriage has always been unity between a man and a woman. It wasn't until recently that such a system was challenged.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

The prominence of homosexuality in other nations, even in history, is not to be confused with homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage is a very new thing, therefore "traditional marriage" is a new term, as marriage has always been unity between a man and a woman. It wasn't until recently that such a system was challenged.

Have you not been reading? The "system" of marriage is continually changing, so of course it has been challenged. It was challenged not half a century ago in America when people of different races wanted to marry.

And homosexual marriage is not a new thing.
http://www.answers.com/topic/same-sex-marriage?method=8#wp-History_of_same-sex_unions

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Have you not been reading? The "system" of marriage is continually changing, so of course it has been challenged. It was challenged not half a century ago in America when people of different races wanted to marry.

You can't compare it to interracial marriages. Interracial marriages were made a felony under the Wilson administration, which adamantly opposed women's suffrage until they had no hope (they being the Democrats). Comparing interracial laws made less than a hundred years ago and abolished more than half a century ago is nothig like homosexuality, which was prominent in both Greek and Roman culture, the classics of western culture.


And as far as your link goes, I was mostly thinking in western culture. I know only the basic need-to-knows about other cultures. I'm still trying to understand my own lol

 

[Brennin]

I generally have little respect for tradition...

Yeah, people (myself included) tend not to like traditions that get in the way of their sins.

 

[Brennin]

Have you not been reading? The "system" of marriage is continually changing, so of course it has been challenged. It was challenged not half a century ago in America when people of different races wanted to marry.

And homosexual marriage is not a new thing.
http://www.answers.com/topic/same-sex-marriage?method=8#wp-History_of_same-sex_unions

I find it interesting that you would cite an article that mentions pederasty as an example of gay unions.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

Yeah, people (myself included) tend not to like traditions that get in the way of their sins.

O RLY?

 

[Arnold_Philips]

You can't compare it to interracial marriages.

They are very similar.

 

[gengwall]

One needs to keep in mind the distinction between legally acceptable unions and religiously acceptable unions. I see no problem with giving gay couples the same legal status as other couples as homo/hetero has nothing to do with the legal arrangement per se.

On the other hand, I see no reason why the church has to marry them (even though there are certainly some church bodies that will). The law does not show preference (nor should it) to those joined in a church vs. those joined by a civil authority.

I say, marry all you want, just don't ask the church to sanction, bless, or perform the marriage.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

One needs to keep in mind the distinction between legally acceptable unions and religiously acceptable unions. I see no problem with giving gay couples the same legal status as other couples as homo/hetero has nothing to do with the legal arrangement per se.

On the other hand, I see no reason why the church has to marry them (even though there are certainly some church bodies that will). The law does not show preference (nor should it) to those joined in a church vs. those joined by a civil authority.

I say, marry all you want, just don't ask the church to sanction, bless, or perform the marriage.

And no one (that I know of) is demanding that religious establishments and their holy men marry or bless same sex unions.