(no subject)

[dreamer_easy]

Further to the Rev. Warren's remarks, I'd like to investigate this claim: "For 5,000 years every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman, not just Christianity [but also] Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism."

By specifying that period of time, Warren has in a sense staked a claim on my territory. 5,000 years ago, there was no Christianity, no Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. From the perspective of Sumer and predynastic Egypt, those faiths are mere Johnny-come-latelies. But in the Ancient Near East, there was no religious definition of marriage. It was a civil matter of laws and contracts, mostly regarding the production of children and the disposal of property. Laws regulated virginity, inheritance, child support, support for divorced women, and so on. Funny to think that 5,000 years later, it's these civil rights which gay and lesbian couples are seeking: for the state to recognise and regulate their marriages, and modern versions of the same issues.

Comments

[nyssa-p.livejournal.com]

Wow! How "special" is that guy!?

[hiraethin.livejournal.com]

Perhaps what he meant was, "For 5,000 years every single culture* and every single religion has been intolerant of open homosexuality."

Or, in other words, intolerance was good enough then. Why not now?

*Yes, I know that historically there were cultures that tolerated homosexuality. I'm suggesting that this is what he meant, not that what he meant was correct.

[hnpcc]

every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman, not just Christianity [but also] Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism.

Just the one man and one woman? Bullshit. And the definition of "woman" is pretty bloody loose at times too. 8 years old is not a "woman" no matter how married she is.

[outsdr.livejournal.com]

By specifying that period of time, Warren has in a sense staked a claim on my territory.

It's almost like your entire life has been in preparation for just this moment.*

(Almost because a TARDIS hasn't materialized yet!)


*This is actually what I thought when I read the first sentence.

[kelemvor.livejournal.com]

Wow. This guy sounds like he'd make a good prophet for sgloomi's Hollow Gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_Diplomacy)!
"The Hollow Gods? They've always been here!"
"I suspect that they've only 'always' been here for the last 20 years..."

[meljane.livejournal.com]

Wow reading that article really shows how marriage has changed so much and I think that things looked alot better many centuries ago compared to the way things are now *sigh*

[alisoneales.livejournal.com]

gay and lesbian couples

*cough* and bisexuals...

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

In stating that there was no religious definition of marriage, you might be postulating a civil-religious divide which did not exist at the time. Contract law was well established back then, but religion was pretty haphazzard from generation to generation. There wasn't really the concept of "secular leadership" the way we now understand it - city-states and regions had their official religions and all followed them as a matter of course.

Certainly by the time of Mosaic law, you have religious mandated family law (there's lots about how divorce works, etc).

As for the civil rights which you enumerate, some US states have created "civil union" relationships which specify all of them. Warren himself had advocated for the ability of two people of the same sex to enter into a civil union. That has not apparently been adequate - the word "marriage" appears to mean substantially more than just a collection of specific property rights (c.f. the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision).

I think that some of what is at issue here is the difference between the denotation and the connotations of the word "marriage."