Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » To those that claim that I'm the only one that makes this argument against ssm (Page 9)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   
Author Topic: To those that claim that I'm the only one that makes this argument against ssm
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lefty/Tom Paine's Ghost/Dada

You flatter yourself too much when you presume to have had a "discussion" with me. Come on, Dada, tell me what a "common law divorce" means, in the context that you used it above [Big Grin]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lady Starkiller
Member
Member # 2444

 - posted      Profile for Lady Starkiller   Email Lady Starkiller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LeftyPatriot - I'm attempting to go to sleep at the moment (and procrastinating ... how awful is that?), but if you want to get another thread started, I'll be back on at some more seemly hour of today, probably. Unless you'd prefer our discussion be limited to email, in which case I think mine's in my profile. (It damn well should be... Alix wanders off to look.)
Posts: 434 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete@ home, you are making no sense.

Like I said, you like to shift away from the point at hand and attack the person whose questions you cannot answer. This attack is unclear to me, but then I am new here.

I once had a person on a board convinced I was an old friend. Well, she had herself convinced. Was ANGRY I hadn't told her about my new id. I tried to convince her for over three months it wasn't the case, to no avail. Was rather-interesting. If I ever go for an MA in Soc or Psych I might have to write bout it.

Now, are you sure your not just pulling my leg with parody? I mean, you really can't be this dense, can you?

[ January 26, 2007, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: LeftyPatriot ]

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, speak and Spell for friend Pete @

Common law divorce is the opposite of comon law marriage...

You do not live together.

You do not describe yourself as married.

You do not share bills, property...

And after a while, without state intervention, "POOF" your not married any more.

Is that too hard to comprehend? Do you understand now?

[ January 26, 2007, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: LeftyPatriot ]

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeftyPatriot:
OK, speak and Spell for friend Pete @

Common law divorce is the opposite of comon law marriage...

You do not live together.

You do not describe yourself as married.

You do not share bills, property...

And after a while, without state intervention, "POOF" your not married any more.

Is that too hard to comprehend? Do you understand now?

I think I understand it now, although you obviously don't grasp the ramifications of that you are proposing. Now that you've finally clarified what you meant by that stupid term, I can answer your question that you've been falsely accusing me of "dodging."

quote:
What is wrong with a "common law" divorce?
First of all, the name is idiotic, since what you describe is a simple irresponsible breakup, and has nothing to do with the COMMON LAW, which refers to law developed by judges as opposed to enacted by the legislature.

Second, one of the main purposes of any divorce proceeding involves assigning child custody and dividing property. MARRIAGE, even common law marriage, involves joint ownership of property. How does your brilliant idea of "common law divorce" deal with these matters? Hmm?

I can't believe that I wasted an hour arguing about family matters with a guy that thinks that a shack-up is a marriage and that abandonment is divorce.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, you think it is "irresponsible" to break up equitably, simply because the courts are not involved?

Second, you will note I didn't say a DAMN thing about children. Why do you assume any are involved?

As to the property, obviously it is worked out by simple one to one agreement--or else there would be need for courts.

A fiction created to form the reality of divorce lawyers.

"I can't believe that I wasted an hour arguing about family matters with a guy that thinks that a shack-up is a marriage and that abandonment is divorce."

Um, in a common law state a "shack up" can become marriage. You still do not seem to understand.

And mutually splitting is not abandonment. You misrepresent my position, (charitably) by mistake I am sure.

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Common law marriage actually existed when all of family law in western civilization was part of Catholic Canon law. Believe it or not, the regime where you needed a priest and ceremony to get married was a product of secularization, and started at the Council of Trent, when marriage became a secular matter rather than religious. Scottland was the last European nation to abolish common law marriage, and did so in 2006. Scottland was the last hold-out. The fact that some parts of the US still have it is probably due to Scottish influence.

The secular movement to abolish common law marriage started centuries ago after the Council of Trent; A number of Shakespeare's plays such as Measure for Measure complained about the decreasing recognition of the traditional "handfast marriage" where a couple married without a priest by clasping hands and declaring in front of witnesses that they were married.

------------
Now for the unpleasant stuff -- responding to TomPaine'sGhost:
You asked me about the law in general. If there was no possibility that children were involved, civil marriage would not exist.

As for whether no property remains "shared," that's a matter of opinion, and opinions can change over time. That's why when marriages split split, it's safer to have a public record that shows who got what.

quote:
Um, .
Going back to your tedious "um" thing, eh, TPG?

quote:
in a common law state a "shack up" can become marriage
:duh: WRONG. Shacking up, in itself, does not make you "married" even in a common law state. In addition to cohabitation and other factors, you need to INTEND TO BE MARRIED. In some common law states this has to be express intent, in some it has to be publicly manifest, some say "mutual consent", and in some, mental intent will suffice for the intent element. That's why your talk about not knowing whether you were married or not demonstrated your ignorance about common law marriage.

[ January 26, 2007, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeftyPatriot:
So, you think it is "irresponsible" to break up equitably, simply because the courts are not involved?

No. I think that it's idiotically irresponsible to not know whether one is married or not to one's ex-girlfriend. Since if a guy is still married according to the laws of the state, that guy's wife could be collecting debt, and the guy would be legally responsible for it. That, and a bunch of other reasons why any sane and responsible person should know what their marriage status is.

That's probably why on forms you have to fill out, there's an entry that says something like:
quote:
MARITAL STATUS:
___single
___married
___divorced

I've never seen an entry for
quote:
___duh. I don't know.
Maybe you should sue the form makers for discriminating against you. [LOL]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This may not even be relevant, but the "pagan"/wiccan ceremony where a couple commits to be together a year and a day is called handfasting, and seems to be primarily looked on as a "trial marriage" or engagement period.
handfasting website

Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Handfasting was the old English term for real marriages that did not involve a priest, but were considered binding for life. Most marriages in Christian Europe prior to the Council of Trent were handfast marriages. That's annoying that fad has subverted the word into something other than marriage.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lady Starkiller
Member
Member # 2444

 - posted      Profile for Lady Starkiller   Email Lady Starkiller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's annoying that fad has subverted the word into something other than marriage.
Why? It's not like "handfasting" is still a term in common usage. Would you prefer them to make up a completely new word? And it's hardly a fad - it's a kind of religiously-recognized relationship that the participants take extremely seriously, on the whole.
Posts: 434 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Starkiller:
quote:
That's annoying that fad has subverted the word into something other than marriage.
Why? It's not like "handfasting" is still a term in common usage.
That's why I said annoying rather than outrageous. Annoyance is personal. It's something that annoys only Shakespeare & Rennaisance buffs like me. And the Wiccans I have met have the annoying habit of reading their redefinitions of old words back into the history. For example, some pretend (or actually believe; I'm not sure) that the "witches" hanged in massachussetts a few centuries ago were a case of persecution of actual "witches," which they interpret as Wiccans. Which pretty much buggers the history that the witch trial victims were Christians who got framed and murdered based on Flimsy evidence by a Christian court, on the word of an apparently Christian and definitely psychotic slut named Abigain Williams.

Other types have done this as well -- child-abusing satanic cults have existed for centuries and continue to exist, but now along comes a pack of twits who call themselves the church of Satan, out in the open, and act that whenever anyone speaks of Satanists that we're talking about their little gig. You might as well call your group the "snipes" and then cry about the persecution of "your people" at the hands of intolerant boy scouts and their "Snipe hunts."

quote:
Would you prefer them to make up a completely new word?
Yes, or at least pick something that doesn't mangle history and distort the meaning of Shakespeare plays. It's a damned shame that we've gradually lost the legal protections of common-law marriage, and I often struggle with cultural traditionalists who misunderstand the history and think that common law marriage is some new fad, when in fact it was the predominant form of marriage under Catholic canon law. On this board and in other places, I've often cite "Measure for Measure" and other plays to show that Shakespeare was lamenting the gradual erosion and lack of respect towards handfast marriages. Redefining that word makes it harder to explain the history. Given their track record with the "witches" term I'm betting that the "witchies" (a term I learned from an older, more serious and mature Wiccan woman that she uses to refer to the younger faddish twerps that in her mind abuse her faith for shock effect) will now pass around the misinformation that the year and a day stuff was always called handfast marriage. Just like TPG did above. Bogs down the conversation, buries history under another layer of BS, and makes everyone a little more stupid.

quote:
And it's hardly a fad - it's a kind of religiously-recognized relationship that the participants take extremely seriously, on the whole.
I'm sorry if that came off as a slur. At one time, the Christian church was a fad. Doesn't mean that the participants don't take it seriously. It simply means that time will tell whether it endures. If I'm mistaken and this year and a day thing has endured for generations down to those who practice it today, then why are they coopting the word 'handfast'? rather than using the traditional name for the practice?

If I've spoken ignorantly, please correct my ignorance. If it sounds like I'm prejudiced, well, I am; I may be making unfair assumptions based on previous experiences where self-proclaimed capital P Pagan Wiccans redefined words and then used equivocation (whether conscious or not, I'm not sure) to rewrite history to put themselves at its center. But I'm capable of seeing past my prejudice. I don't regard Wiccanism as without value; I find the threefold law very interesting, and like the way that they bring modern insights into ancient forms. For some reason, they seem to respect the history of the forms. I just wish they'd show the same respect towards the history of words.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lady Starkiller
Member
Member # 2444

 - posted      Profile for Lady Starkiller   Email Lady Starkiller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's why I said annoying rather than outrageous. Annoyance is personal.
Ah, ok. Sorry; too many people I know use "annoying" as shorthand for "oh my God, this should be banned".

quote:
And the Wiccans I have met have the annoying habit of reading their redefinitions of old words back into the history. For example, some pretend (or actually believe; I'm not sure) that the "witches" hanged in massachussetts a few centuries ago were a case of persecution of actual "witches," which they interpret as Wiccans.
Yes, that annoys the hell out of me, too.

quote:
Yes, or at least pick something that doesn't mangle history and distort the meaning of Shakespeare plays.
I can understand this, but, I don't know, I guess I'm just used to having to keep track of more than one definition for most words. I find that fascinating and exciting, but not all people do.

quote:
It's a damned shame that we've gradually lost the legal protections of common-law marriage, and I often struggle with cultural traditionalists who misunderstand the history and think that common law marriage is some new fad, when in fact it was the predominant form of marriage under Catholic canon law. On this board and in other places, I've often cite "Measure for Measure" and other plays to show that Shakespeare was lamenting the gradual erosion and lack of respect towards handfast marriages. Redefining that word makes it harder to explain the history. Given their track record with the "witches" term I'm betting that the "witchies" (a term I learned from an older, more serious and mature Wiccan woman that she uses to refer to the younger faddish twerps that in her mind abuse her faith for shock effect) will now pass around the misinformation that the year and a day stuff was always called handfast marriage. Just like TPG did above. Bogs down the conversation, buries history under another layer of BS, and makes everyone a little more stupid.
I had no idea about common-law marriage being such a longstanding institution until I read this thread, really. And I completely understand your point about redefinitions bogging down discussions. I guess I really wonder, though, how uncommon a word has to be before someone can legitimately redefine or otherwise resurrect it.

quote:
I'm sorry if that came off as a slur. At one time, the Christian church was a fad. Doesn't mean that the participants don't take it seriously. It simply means that time will tell whether it endures. If I'm mistaken and this year and a day thing has endured for generations down to those who practice it today, then why are they coopting the word 'handfast'? rather than using the traditional name for the practice?
Ah, ok, another misunderstanding on my part. I actually have no idea how old the practice is; despite what a number of Wiccans say, the religion is new - which, actually, would explain the coopting of the word "handfast". Even if the practice is one they're borrowing from elsewhere, they may want a term that fits the language or culture they're presently involved in better.

quote:
If I've spoken ignorantly, please correct my ignorance. If it sounds like I'm prejudiced, well, I am; I may be making unfair assumptions based on previous experiences where self-proclaimed capital P Pagan Wiccans redefined words and then used equivocation (whether conscious or not, I'm not sure) to rewrite history to put themselves at its center. But I'm capable of seeing past my prejudice. I don't regard Wiccanism as without value; I find the threefold law very interesting, and like the way that they bring modern insights into ancient forms. For some reason, they seem to respect the history of the forms. I just wish they'd show the same respect towards the history of words.
1. I was, actually, replying more out of my own word-geekiness than anything else.

2. The "let's rewrite history!" Wiccans (and other pagans) annoy the hell out of me - and their more serious brothers and sisters. A couple of years ago (I think) a whole host of genuinely serious Wiccan websites began springing up debunking all the false history crap the history-ignoring Wiccans had thrown about for years. There's even a term in the Wiccan community for them - "fluffy bunnies", also known as those "Wiccans" who can't walk due to all the pentacles they're wearing, hold vigils for all the witches burned during the Inquisition, and go on the local news at Halloween decrying the stereotype of the evil witch.

Whoa. That was longer than I intended it to be, sorry.

Posts: 434 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lady Starkiller
Member
Member # 2444

 - posted      Profile for Lady Starkiller   Email Lady Starkiller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I should add, on the last part, that there are a number of Wiccan sites and Wiccan groups that are very conscientious about promoting genuine historical knowledge and accuracy among their membership, usually by simple correction, but I've seen more than one hostile Wiccan ranter get slammed by a fellow Wiccan.

Somewhere on my computer, lost amid my other links, is a link to an information page on statistics on the Inquisition, how many "real witches" might possibly have died (erm...0), how many people were really burned (very few), and so on ... written by a Wiccan for Wiccans, because he was pissed off at the exact same thing that irritates you (and me): the mucking about with historical fact that occurs in the more egotistical groups.

...Okay, that's enough of a tangent. [Razz]

Posts: 434 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ah, ok, another misunderstanding on my part. I actually have no idea how old the practice is; despite what a number of Wiccans say, the religion is new - which, actually, would explain the coopting of the word "handfast". Even if the practice is one they're borrowing from elsewhere, they may want a term that fits the language or culture they're presently involved in better.
I agree; the misuse offends my sensibilities as a word Geek. I'd known about handfast marriage since first reading M4M decades ago, but only last week in family law class and other history texts did I find out just how massively prevalent it was for over 1000 years. Sad thing is that the last European nation, Scottland, finally eliminated common-law marriage in 2006.

quote:
1. I was, actually, replying more out of my own word-geekiness than anything else.
Ah. That explains why I intuitively respect you. Respect for words.

quote:
2. The "let's rewrite history!" Wiccans (and other pagans) annoy the hell out of me - and their more serious brothers and sisters. A couple of years ago (I think) a whole host of genuinely serious Wiccan websites began springing up debunking all the false history crap the history-ignoring Wiccans had thrown about for years. There's even a term in the Wiccan community for them - "fluffy bunnies", also known as those "Wiccans" who can't walk due to all the pentacles they're wearing, hold vigils for all the witches burned during the Inquisition, and go on the local news at Halloween decrying the stereotype of the evil witch
I'm very glad to hear of this development. My guess is that the anti-Halloween twits were the straw that broke the Camel's back for the serious ones. That's sounds like a very effective use of cultural norm terms to deal with what more hierarchical churches might treat as a heresy issue. I saw hints of that norming tactic a few years ago when I was on a couple of boards with a few of them, I saw the term "witchies" to describe another overlapping subset. In my eyes, that looks like a core of believers are moving the faith towards a more serious and lasting religion. (I'll be more careful about using that f-word since you were right to correct me -- that is how most people would interpret it).

Speaking of organization, I've always wondered how what seems like a fairly unorganized faith community maintains what they describe as a warlocking procedure, which seems to be a fairly direct equivalent to excommunication.

quote:
I should add, on the last part, that there are a number of Wiccan sites and Wiccan groups that are very conscientious about promoting genuine historical knowledge and accuracy among their membership, usually by simple correction, but I've seen more than one hostile Wiccan ranter get slammed by a fellow Wiccan.
That's good to hear. The ones I saw went out of the way to not openly disagree with each other, but I received a couple emails from one or another that apparently felt the need to ... unburden herself, if that makes sense, of stuff she wanted to say on the board against stuff a fellow Wiccan had said, but felt she could not. Some communities -- particularly those based more on ethnicity than religion -- keep that as an enduring problem.

quote:
Somewhere on my computer, lost amid my other links, is a link to an information page on statistics on the Inquisition, how many "real witches" might possibly have died (erm...0), how many people were really burned (very few), and so on ... written by a Wiccan for Wiccans, because he was pissed off at the exact same thing that irritates you (and me): the mucking about with historical fact that occurs in the more egotistical groups.
To be fair, a lot of groups muck around with history. Copernicus may have shed light on the physical universe, but that light only penetrates so far. At some level, every person and every group will always rest at the center of its own universe. I'm glad to hear of a movement within the group to preserve history. I'm also always glad to find or hear of another person that respects words.

I just find these fluffy word manipulations more pernicious because they have a strong chance of spreading myth to overwrite history outside the group. Redefining old terms while appealing to identity and victimhood is a devastatingly powerful combination in today's political environment. The same sort of thaumaturgy is my main beef with the whole ss'm' movement -- not just that they seek to redefine the word marriage, but that in order to do so, many of them (like the Goodridge majority) start the argument on the pretense that this is what marriage has always meant.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scouser1
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TO ALL AT AMERICAN ORNERY!!!
Yes, thats right, im back!!! Aww did u guys miss me???
And before I go any further: to the person who sent me a little "threat" in an email: How petty!!
You have excelled yourself, to go to ALL that trouble to email me a threat without being traced is just.....sad.....very very sad.
Going to all that effort just to try and "scare" me?? I dont think so!!
Whoever you are you don't scare me, far from it. All you did was give me a good laugh..thanks [LOL]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TPG please stop spamming all of the threads with this same rant on your personal issues. If someone emailed you, email them back. Or if you're serious that you were actually *threatened,* then start a new thread to address the matter, rather than pissing over existing threads.

In all the years I've been on Ornery I've only seen one person ever resort to personal threats, and to my knowledge you've never tangled with him. Why don't you start a new thread, post the email, and see if we agree with you that you've actually been "threatened," or whether poor English language skills and other personal qualities have once again led you to a laugable conclusion.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lady Starkiller
Member
Member # 2444

 - posted      Profile for Lady Starkiller   Email Lady Starkiller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My guess is that the anti-Halloween twits were the straw that broke the Camel's back for the serious ones. ... In my eyes, that looks like a core of believers are moving the faith towards a more serious and lasting religion.[quote]

That's pretty much exactly it; to be fair, a lot of Wiccans were serious about historical accuracy before the whole "local witch on Halloween" stuff, but that certainly didn't help the fluffies much. And there are an awful lot of Wiccans concerned with making sure their religion has a firm and lasting foundation, which, in my opinion, is a good thing.

[quote]Speaking of organization, I've always wondered how what seems like a fairly unorganized faith community maintains what they describe as a warlocking procedure, which seems to be a fairly direct equivalent to excommunication.

I've actually never heard of that. (Alix wanders off to poke around.)

quote:
To be fair, a lot of groups muck around with history.
True, very true. It's part of what fascinates me about history, even as it repels me.

quote:
I just find these fluffy word manipulations more pernicious because they have a strong chance of spreading myth to overwrite history outside the group. Redefining old terms while appealing to identity and victimhood is a devastatingly powerful combination in today's political environment. The same sort of thaumaturgy is my main beef with the whole ss'm' movement -- not just that they seek to redefine the word marriage, but that in order to do so, many of them (like the Goodridge majority) start the argument on the pretense that this is what marriage has always meant.
I get that. One of my etymology teachers used to call it "back-defining", though I don't think that's the proper term for it. But, a question: If one were to make the argument not that that's what marriage has always meant, but that that's what one wants to redefine marriage to mean, would it bother you quite as much?
Posts: 434 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
bounced for Ciasiab
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry I missed this question by LS. Is LS still around?

"One of my etymology teachers used to call it "back-defining", though I don't think that's the proper term for it. But, a question: If one were to make the argument not that that's what marriage has always meant, but that that's what one wants to redefine marriage to mean, would it bother you quite as much?"

No. Especially if that's how they framed the discussion from its inception, in public.

[ February 26, 2009, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since I've recently been reminded that folks like to start reading a thread at the end, here's a repost of the starter post of this thread, which is the whole reason that I bumped it.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
“Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship.
Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.”
What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don’t confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.”

Walter Fauntroy
Former DC Delegate to Congress
Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus
Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on DC



Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
It's not just folks like me and Martel on the marriage defense side that see ssm as an attempt to completely bury the idea of a child needing a father and a mother.

Gloria Steinem sings the praises of SSM because it would destroy the link between relationships and raising children. SHE DID NOT EVEN MENTION GAY RIGHTS in the interview.


More recent examples of nihilism supporting ssm:

The Bay Windows article titled "To Your Battle Stations" says:

quote:
"Whether you are just coming out, transgender, heterosexual or ideologically opposed to marriage, you do not want to see this campaign [referring to the amendment to reverse the Goodridge atrocity] in Massachusetts."
That's an interesting admission, isn't it? That persons that want to see marriage destroyed, should support ssm?

See also the "Alternatives to Marriage" project which supports ssm as a step on the way to replacing marriage with a totally different system that embraces a "full range" of family types.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ciasiab, I've gone through this thread and exerpted one conversation betweeen myself and kidB, removing parts that I suspect that KB would be as glad as me to see removed. This thread took some tangents, but this discussion with KidB is probably the most on point to the key issue of this thread, the point raised by Walter Fauntroy.

quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
quote:
Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship.
Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.”
What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don’t confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.”

Since Pete put this quote at the very beginning of this thread, I'd like to point out the problem I'm having with it.

First off - and I'm really surprised that no one else has picked up on this yet - I have grave issues with the phrase "Don't confuse my people." This is an infantalizing stance to take, don't you think? I.e. "my people are easily confused". It harkens back to the notion - all-too-rampant in the sixties, and evident in the writings of Malcolm X and other activists - that homosexuality (along with other forms of supposed sexual deviance) is an invention of the white bourgeoise. It is racism, pure and simple.

This leads directly to my next point - that there is an assumption that homosexual orientation is something that can be influenced by social coercion. In other words, legal tolerance of homosexuality leads to more homosexuals (as if heteros can be so tempted to form permanent gay unions they would not otherwise have pursued). I know that Pete is perfectly willing to tolerate gay unions of a sort, but his fears about redefining marriage nonetheless speak to a similar assumption.

Perhaps - if I read him correctly - he is rather afraid that the effect on heterosexual couples will be negative in other ways. In other words, by taking the emphasis of marriage away from child-rearing and emphasisizing sexual love relationships in general, it will lead to a more selfish or self-centered marriage culture, in which the welfare fo children becomes less central to society as a whole.

I however, see the opposite effect. Love and commitment should be a legal and social prerequisite to having children. For most of history, when birth control was both unavailable and/or inadequate, mutual love and attraction as a presrequisite for marriage was seen by most as a foolish, pie-in-the-sky luxury, marriage had to be enforced to make sure that children had parents. One the woman become pregnant (whether as product of genuine sexual love, or simple recklessness) the man had to be made to stay and take care of wife and child. This was when society afford only men a "self" - women were seen as inherently self-less. The male ego had to be restrained and made responsible. This social coercion did not necessarily lead to happiness - nor was it meant to. It was simply in place to make people take responsibility for their actions, to face consequences whether it made them happy or not.

Fine. However, one of the great outcomes of the sexual revolution is the now widespread acceptance that happier parents have healthier children. As such, our modern culture recognizes that women experience desire (i.e. have an ego) just as men do, and encourages planned parenthood rather than accidental parenthood. Our modern view of marriage posits that one should be in love first, and have a secure relationship, before attempting to reproduce. This means that we lead happier lives, and do not have to foist our bitterness about being trapped in an unwanted marriage on our kids. So it seems to me that defining marriage as being about love, first and foremost, would actually benefit children rather than hurt them. In other words, marriage would be defined as "mutual love and lifelong commitment." That would be our social ideal. It may lead to children or it may not. But at least by putting sexual love first, you create a cultural climate in which people learn to take love and sexual happiness seriously, as something socially important.

Children with single parents are not the victims of re-defined marriage. Unplanned children come about when two people took risks that were not appropriate for their lack of commitment to one another. If you want to foster a healthy society, the last thing we should encourage is the idea that marriage is an alter upon which adults sacrifice their happiness to live for their offspring. We should encourage gay marriage, and use the word "marriage," for all the reasons Pete would have us deny it to gays, because it would promote the belief that mutual love and happiness MUST come before any attempt to have children. That gays still have the right to marry members of the opposite sex does not solve the problem, because gays would still be denied the right to marry someone with whom they could fall in love with. An unhappy faux-hetero couple is a far, far worse environment for a child than a happy homo couple.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
First off - and I'm really surprised that no one else has picked up on this yet - I have grave issues with the phrase "Don't confuse my people." This is an infantalizing stance to take, don't you think? I.e. "my people are easily confused".
No. It means "my people are already confused about marriage." And if you paid attention to history, and to what he said, you'd understand the forces that have been set in place to confuse his people with respect to marriage.

Different cultures have different strengths. Many white American cultures are profoundly confused about physical affection, for example. In a healthy culture, guys should be able to hug without inferences of homosexuality.

Until 2001, most Americans were pretty confused about world geography.

Recognizing a weakness and trying to fix it, isn't "infantalizing." Seems like a spurious PC argument.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
that there is an assumption that homosexual orientation is something that can be influenced by social coercion
No, there isn't in what he said. Pay better attention, and try to see past your stereotypes and preconceptions of anti-ssm arguments. " It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.”

NONE of that has to do with sexual orientation. Sticking in an argument that's not there and then rebutting it is called a "straw man" argument. Don't do that.

quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
quote:
No. It means "my people are already confused about marriage." And if you paid attention to history, and to what he said, you'd understand the forces that have been set in place to confuse his people with respect to marriage...Recognizing a weakness and trying to fix it, isn't "infantalizing." Seems like a spurious PC argument.
What "forces"? I have paid plenty attention to history, but I'm not a mind-reader, and therefore don't know what the hell you're talking about. Please clarify.
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
[unnecessarily hostile stuff exerpted -- sorry KidB]... straw man.

quote:
Children with single parents are not the victims of re-defined marriage.
That depends. If the single parents didn't get married because of the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, or because most men her age she knew were in prison or otherwise ineligible for marriage, then no, it's not.

But if the single parents didn't get married because they were taught about a definition of marriage that was not associated with procreation, then yes, those children are victims of re-defined marriage.

This civil rights leader's point is, that he's trying to teach his people the importance of marriage, and that redefining marriage so that procreation has nothing to do with marriage, undermines his efforts and traps his people in a permanent undercaste.

quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
Pete,

If there are "important differences" between men and women, as suggested in the quote, then obviously sexual orientation is directly related to the argument he is making. Not only is it not a straw man, it is central to his argument.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
KidA, if you honestly have no idea about what he meant when he said that his people "have been the victims of deliberate family destruction," then I apologize. Schools don't really teach this stuff. I'd suggest reading "Beloved" and "Raisin in the Sun."

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
He made clear that these important differences relate to procreation and raising children, which has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
[qb] [KidB's ritual posturing removed]
[QUOTE] Comparing gay marriage to the consequences of institutional racism is beyond preposterous.

He didn't. He compared the consequence of "gay marriage" (i.e. confusing his people about marriage was, and cementing the sexual revolution's results) to the consequences of institutional racism.

[Pete's ritual posturing removed]

quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
It honestly didn't occur to me (until your prompt) that someone - either he or you - would seriously draw such a comparison in the year 2006. Okay then, do you really want me to go on at length as to why the current problems faced by the African-American community are NOT the result of the gay rights movement? Rather than, say, the continuing effects of racism and a total lack of funding for adequate education? ...

I give the African-American community enough credit that they are not any more likely to be "confused" on any issue than any other American community. I do not take them for simpletons.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
[kidB said]: "Perhaps - if I read him correctly - he is rather afraid that the effect on heterosexual couples will be negative in other ways. In other words, by taking the emphasis of marriage away from child-rearing and emphasisizing sexual love relationships in general, it will lead to a more selfish or self-centered marriage culture, in which the welfare fo children becomes less central to society as a whole."

...

Seems more on point that he's concerned that it will be harder to persuade girls to postpone making babies until marriage, if marriage isn't about raising children any more. Many black leaders feel that a lack of FATHERS plagues the black community. How a self-designated expert on african-american literature misses that little fact is beyond me. This whole debate trains the left to completely dance around that issue, and that's part of the problem here.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
But since Pete's pro-choice, that leaves us with "hypothetical potential for unassisted, accidental, voluntary procreation."

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I consider abortion an atrocity, but an atrocity that's outside the jurisdiction of any reasonable human government, just as a typical murder in China is outside US jurisdiction. No constitution-respecting American should trust the government to tell a woman when she must menstruate. I certainly do not believe in encouraging people to abort babies that they don't want, let alone institutionalizing the assumption that unplanned or unwanted pregnancies should be aborted.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Holy thread necromancy, Batman!
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cheer up; at least I didn't resurrect this one yet. [LOL]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The way dead threads keep coming back to life here, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next Romero movie is called Ornery of the Dead.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Holy thread necromancy, Batman!

I'm sorry, what was that, Tom?

[LOL]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1