Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman

hell’s handmaiden

» 2006 » 05 » 30 » Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman

30th May 2006

posted in Politics by themaiden |

Well…

… unless one happens to be a Biblical Patriarch, in which case marriage equals one man and several women, or even one man, several women and free use of slave girls called concubines.

Or if one happens to be a legendary Israelite King then marriage equals one man and hundreds of women plus slave girls.

Or if one happens to be a Jew up until the tenth century, marriage could mean one man and several wives.

Much the same held in China for century upon century.

Or perhaps one happens to be one of the Toda, then marriage equals several men plus one woman. Or perhaps one is a nomadic Tibetan, then marriage equals two brothers and one woman.

Or maybe one is Kaingang, in which case one has options– one man plus one woman, one man plus several women, several women plus one man, or several men plus several women.

Or maybe one is Nayar, in which case marriage isn’t much about adding at all.

Or in large swathes of the pre-columbian New World, one could opt to marry a berdache.

A soldier in any number of cultures– among them the ancient Greek and the Japanese– could take a younger soldier for a ‘military wife’. The practise still continues in some African cultures, the !Kang, for example.

Really, these “Marriage = One Man + One Woman” people need a lesson in cultural anthropology.

Popularity: 6%

Love the post? Hate it? Please let me know. Leave a comment and spread the word: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 30th, 2006 at 7:48 am and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 74 responses to “Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

1 On July 16th, 2006, Kai MacTane said:
There’s one you missed, that’s a little closer to home for the current situation: If you’re living in the Southern states, 50 or more years ago. Then marriage is one man and woman, *as long as they’re both the same color*.
2 On July 16th, 2006, Daniel Schumacher said:
Great point! It is always a big clue when somebody with a weak argument says: “It’s always been that way.” Such people rarely have studied their own subject matter and are really stating an opinion. Many today make similar arguments (founding fathers were devout, fundamentalist Christians, etc.) My personal opinion is that government should completely get out of the marriage business and marriage should again be a strictly private ritual with no legal significance. The State does have an interest in property, issues of parenting, education, etc, and as such legal rights for parents, children, and for any adults who enter into civil unions should be supported with no regard for the gender or sexual orientation of the parties. Since when does the goverment regulate sexual activity?? Why is sexual orientation tied to any legal right?
3 On July 16th, 2006, sweetnjguy29 said:
Very well said!
4 On July 16th, 2006, Austin Cline said:
They also need a lesson in biology.
5 On July 16th, 2006, joe said:
…or a Catholic clergyman up until about 800 A.D., in which case you may have had multiple wives or concubines (St. Agustine himself wrote about his lament in taking an Ethiopian concubine, as was his right at the time).
6 On July 16th, 2006, lowdown said:
I am a big proponent of polygamy. It makes sense. No, I’m not mormon.
7 On July 16th, 2006, themaiden said:
Hey thanks! That is a good one.

Likewise with Joe’s comment about the clergymen.
8 On July 16th, 2006, God is for Suckers! » Blog Archive » Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman? said:
[...] Found this great blog posting over at reddit.com: Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman [...]
9 On July 16th, 2006, dap said:
regardless or the number of partners, you will notice that it is ‘male marries female’ or vice versa, not ‘male marries male’ or ‘female marries female’.
10 On July 17th, 2006, Shaun said:
Polygamy is a law that while not currently practiced by mormons (yes, I am one) has an important place. In fact, the principles of polygamy are still needed if a man marries, is widowed, and marries again. The mormon belief that marriage in this life continues in the life to come would mean that a man would then have two wives. This means that once they have all died and are all ressurected, haveing bodies once agian, the man would still be married to the two women.

Polygamy is not presently practiced partially because sex is something sacred between a man and his wife (one at a time). Also, polygamy can easily be misused for selfish desires that would be emotionally damaging to the women involved.

The oposite example of a woman being married after being widowed would fall more in the ‘kinsmen redeemer’ principle found in the story of Ruth and Boaz. Children from such a second marriage would be rased up as seed unto the deceased. The primary difference is that a man may have multiple wives, but a woman may only have one husband.
11 On July 17th, 2006, Bill said:
You are missing something very simple.

The people that make the One Man One Woman statement laugh at the thousands - if not tens of thousands - of other gods and religions that have existed after and before theirs, because theirs is for some reason the only one that matters. So who cares about those other people? They are obviously deluded.

Idiots.
12 On July 17th, 2006, Reality Me » Adding a definition of marriage to the state constitution is stupid said:
[...] For those of you about to vote to add the definition of marriage as "a man and a woman" should look at these other marriage situations from culture and history. [...]
13 On July 17th, 2006, Lou said:
Very clever writing. But what about the effects that homosexual “marriage” would have on society? Let’s just pretend that homosexuals are exactly the same as heterosexuals in every way, so we can have more of this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/5109518.stm
14 On July 17th, 2006, Eric said:
Up until 1896 Polygamy was openly practiced in Utah. That is just over 100 years ago.

Traditional my ass.
15 On July 17th, 2006, themaiden said:
You’ll… ah… notice that you are wrong. Look up the term ‘berdache’. Ask yourself if the Greeks had female soldiers, or if the Japanese had female samuri.
16 On July 17th, 2006, themaiden said:
True.
17 On July 17th, 2006, themaiden said:
Look, I appreciate comments and I am happy to give you your say. As you notice, I haven’t altered your statement, but I am going to be blunt: you have got to be a complete idiot to present that report as evidence against 1) gay marriage or 2) homosexuality in general. Why? Well, most sexual abuse– aka, child rape– isn’t done by gay people. Most such abuse is perpetrated by straight folks– daddies, uncles, cousins. So if it is proper to ban gay marriage ’cause a couple of gay men abused some boys, then it is proper a good dozen times over to ban straight marriage. Those bastards abuse far more kids, you see. I should also mention, I suppose, that pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing nor are the behaviors linked.
18 On July 17th, 2006, Robert Fisher said:
I believe there were some female samurai. Although rare. At least before the Chinese influence grew too strong.
19 On July 17th, 2006, themaiden said:
There is always a damned exception, eh? grumble…

Really, it doesn’t surprise me that there were a few female soldiers, but it doesn’t account for the tradition of ’soldier wife’, and it looks like we westerners typically get the terminology wrong.
20 On July 18th, 2006, Lou said:
Their behavors certainly ARE linked. There are far more straight people than gay people, but _per capita_ homosexuals abuse children far more often than straight people do. This problem is much bigger than “a couple of gay men who abused some boys”.
21 On July 18th, 2006, links for 2006-07-17 » One Born Every Minute said:
[...] Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman (tags: marriage religion culture history sex gay) [...]
22 On July 18th, 2006, themaiden said:
Bullshit, Lou. That homosexuals ‘creep you out’ is not evidence that they disproportionately rape kids. The evidence is against you.

Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).

Quoted in: Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Facts, facts, facts, Lou. God-damn those facts!
23 On July 18th, 2006, Lou said:
Here are the facts:

From your own link: “these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children”.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_SPECRPT_pedo-sum.html “the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles (p. 464)”

Blindly repeating “pedophilia is not linked to homosexuality” won’t make it so. The facts simply don’t support that belief.
24 On July 18th, 2006, themaiden said:
What you’ve got isn’t fact. What you’ve got is misquotation and manipulation of the facts.

To play fair, keep your quotes in context.

Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

Isn’t that interesting? All you quoted was that little bit I put in bold. Funny how the meaning changes eh? The researchers are arguing a logical quibble. It is the same one that keeps me from calling myself an atheist. They are not arguing that gays rape kids. In fact, they state that the evidence doesn’t support that claim.

That you’d cite as evidence a fundamentalist propaganda machine posing as a research institute is laughable at best, pathetic at worst. I did read the article though. The author doesn’t have much of a grip on the subject matter.

For example, statistics 101, there is a difference between “homosexuals who molest children” and “pedophiles who prefer same sex victims”.

It is amazing, actually, how similar the FRI article is to creationist literature– out of context quotes, excessive reliance on a few studies to the neglect of mountains of other evidence, the tendency to berate the science and the scientists when the science doesn’t support the faith-based-fact (Notice the title of the article), the inclusion of lots of irrelevant information (Happy gays? Unhappy gays? The point is pointless.), gross distortions of the truth (AIDS has been devastaing the homos? Well, only in some countries. Worldwide the disease is crushing heterosexuals in all the right proportions.), conflation of ideas (For example, the lumping of sex with sixteen year olds and pedophilia. Sixteen is legal today in large parts of the world and was common pretty much everywhere a few generations back. By this standard of pedophilia, just about everyone’s grandfather or great-grandfather was a pedophile.)…

It is not I who blindly repeat a faith-based-fact. I seem to be quoting the general consensus among those who study the issue. You, on the other hand, are quoting an article that is attacking said consensus in order to make a point the evidence does not support.
25 On July 19th, 2006, Lou said:
By your logic, no quotes should ever be used; the entire text must always be shown. You cited an article to prove that pedophilia and homosexuality are not linked, but your article explicitly stated “these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children”. Sure there was a lot of text around that, but I quoted the relevant part. This is a blog, not a novel.

Homosexual activists have done a good job of getting support for their agenda recently, but 30 years ago homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. Time will show that homosexuals are not the same as heterosexuals in every way and should not be “married” and raising children.

Look around you. I see homosexuals all the time hanging around in front of bathrooms at highway rest stops and at the big public library in the city. I know it is not politically correct to say, but many of these people are sick. I’m sorry if that upsets you, but it is the truth.
26 On July 19th, 2006, themaiden said:
It is not unreasonable to insist that the meanings of quotes be preserved. To do otherwise is dishonest. It is no secret that careful cutting of quotations can create a meaning the quoted person did not intend. That is dishonest and you make yourself look bad by defending the practice. And no, you don’t have to quote a text in its entirety to preserve meaning. Pretending so is idiotic.

For example, “This, of course, should not be understood as saying that androphiles may have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles [men interested in sex with women],….”. That, Lou, is from the FRI paper you cite. Wow!!! How is that possible? Well, it is possible because I quoted out of context. Annoying isn’t it? But you don’t mind, right, since it defies logic to have to preserve the meanings of quotes? Funny what leaving out all that other text can do.

What was the case thirty years ago is not necessarily the case now. Thirty years ago interacial marriage was illegal. Would you like to defend that old law? Thirty years ago, oral sex– even between married male-female couples– was illegal. Want to defend that law? I mean, if it was bad thirty years ago it is bad now right? Thirty years ago sex with a fifteen year old girl was unlikely to get anyone arrested. ‘Pedophilia’ seems to have been hunky-dory then. Guess its hunky-dory now too, right?

By the way, I see heterosexuals hanging around the bars, and the dance clubs, and the strip joints all the time. And I see them talking to the hookers. I hate to say it but, many of these people are sick. They are drunks and drug addicts and disease vectors. Why! It damns the whole heterosexual community doesn’t it?

Really, you are making little sense and it gets worse the more you write.
27 On July 19th, 2006, Lou said:
The meanings of the quotes was preserved. By the way, this statement is false: “Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children”. It would be easy to prove that homosexual are less likely to molest children if that were true. They couldn’t prove it because it isn’t true. Proving a negative has nothing to do with it.

People who go to bars, dance clubs, and strip joints (and even hookers for that matter) are using them for their intended purpose. That is very different from gay guys using rest stops to solicit other random homosexuals for a quickie. If you are a mother driving down the highway and your little boy has to pee, you can’t pull over anymore because these freaks are lurking in the bathrooms. Straight people don’t do that.

They had it right 30 years ago. That should be classified as a mental disorder. Take a look at the screwballs who march in “gay pride” parades sometime and tell me how they are normal and should be allowed to “marry” and raise children.
28 On July 20th, 2006, themaiden said:
1) If you think that “these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children” means the same standing alone as it means when coupled with the rest of the paragraph– “each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents”– then you’ve got an amazing pair of blinders. Ripping one sentence from a paper, and waving that sentence triumphantly while ignoring the context and, for that matter, the rest of the paper, is bloody insane. You can get any result you want that way, just as I did with the FRI quote.

2)”Not prove” does not mean “prove the opposite”, as you would have it. This is elementary logic. Look it up.

3) By the way, you’ve missed the last few thousand years of logic. Science cannot prove a negative, nor can anyone else, in the real world (it can be done within rigidly defined systems like mathematics). This, also, is elementary logic. Creationists like to play this same card, and in that context. Science can technically only prove a positive correlation, and even that can be difficult. What scientists can do, and what honest scientists do do, is run a number of tests and conclude that “there is no evidence to support proposition x”. Technically, this isn’t a proof that x is false, which is precisely the point being made by the people I quoted.

4)So… it is OK for gay people to go to gay bars since they would be ‘using them for their intended purpose’? You’ve got the potential for some serious self-contradiction there.

5) Gays using rest stops to solicit sex partners is not different from prostitutes using rest stops, truck stops, public streets, etc. to solicit customers. You are going to tie yourself in knots with this one. I’d suggest you drop it.

6) Look at the screwballs who attend Mardi Gras or Carnivale…
29 On July 20th, 2006, Lou said:
That’s not what “you can’t prove a negative” means at all. It means that you can’t prove that “all pigs cannot fly” unless you check every pig in the universe.

The claim “homosexuals are no more likely to molest children” would be simple to prove if it were true. You would simply compare the percentage of homosexuals who are child molesters to the percentage of heterosexuals who are child molesters. You’d see which number is higher and you’d have your answer.

That has been done many times, by the way, and it turns out that homosexuals are far more likely to molest children. The information is there for anybody who wants it: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

I couldn’t care less if homosexuals go to gay bars. But that doesn’t mean they should marry! Where’s the “self-contradiction”?

Gays using rest stops to solicit sex partners is a lot different from prostitutes soliciting customers. I don’t approve of prostitution, but at least they are motivated by money. Can you imagine hanging around a public bathroom and having sex with the first stranger who happens by? I’m sorry, but that is not normal.
30 On July 20th, 2006, themaiden said:
Unfortunately the problem of proving a negative applies to more than just pigs. It actually applies to quite a large number of questions, but very often gets ignored. There isn’t much we can do about it anyway. For some reason, the people who wrote that article felt like mentioning the issue and it seems to have your tripped up desperately.

What you describe would not provide a proof in any formal sense. You’d have to check every single homosexual and every single heterosexual in order to do that– just like with the pigs.

You have got to stop quoting FRI to prove your point. An organization with an obvious reason for bias simply is not going to convince anyone of anything. It would be like me quoting NAMBLA as evidence that sodomy helps kids grow up happy, or the KKK for evidence that blacks are actually a species of monkey. No one is going to accept the source, especially when that source contradicts all of the other evidence available. Likewise with FRI. It is a fundamentalist organization with religious motivation for its propaganda about homosexuals. Interestingly, it seems that all of the ‘gays rape kids’ BS comes from just such sources. Other sources– such as the US government sponsored Child Welfare Information Gateway and the American Psychiatric Association– disagree. In fact, outside of the religiously motivated bigots, the sources more or less directly contradict your beliefs.

The contradictions are in the reasons you are giving for your various positions, and the “at least they are motivated by money” quip adds another level.
31 On July 21st, 2006, Lou said:
You’re still not getting it. You obviously wouldn’t need to “check every single homosexual and every single heterosexual in order to do that”. You’d just take a sample. That is different from trying to prove that “all pigs cannot fly” because of the word “all”.

The site I provided references surveys done by extreme right-wing groups such as The Los Angeles Times. Since you refuse to accept the evidence I have asked you open your eyes and look around you. Your position seems to be that homosexuals should be given the right to marry because they are no worse than prostitutes.

If homosexuals want to live together and even enter into civil unions they can have at it. But that ain’t marriage and never will be.
32 On July 21st, 2006, themaiden said:
I’m not getting it?

Think about your own example. Why not “just take a sample” of the pigs? Why not go to a pig farm and sample a thousand pigs? None of them fly? Case closed. Wrong. Why? Because taking a sample doesn’t tell you about ALL pigs. It is a technical point, but a valid one, and it is a point made in one sentence– one single sentence– of the article I cited. You seem to be willing to bet the bank on it, but in doing so you fail Logic 101 and ignore everything else stated in that article. That is nuts.

What you cite is an organization dishonest enough, or biased enough, to rely heavily upon the work of a man who has been kicked out of the APA– oh, hey!!! Whatdaya know? Paul Cameron wrote the article you cite! In fact, he is the chair– well, chariman, actually– of FRI. Neat huh? The American Socialogical Association has this to say about your illustrious leader:

“Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism” and noted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research.”

And…

The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research.

And a US District Judge stated that:

“Dr. Paul Cameron…has himself made misrepresentations to this Court” and that “There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron”

Notice that theme of fraud, misrepresentation, distortion of evidence?

Don’t pretend to be appealing to facts when you cite people like Cameron.

By the way, my position has nothing to do with homosexuals and prostitution. That connection is derived from your confused ramblings.
33 On July 21st, 2006, Lou said:
I’m guessing that you failed reading comprehension 101. That “taking a sample doesn’t tell you about ALL pigs” was my point. You can’t take a sample to prove that “all pigs cannot fly”. You would have to, as I said, check every pig in the universe. But if the claim “homosexuals are no more likely to molest children” were true, you could prove it via sample because that claim does not contain the word “all”. I said that before, but you either didn’t read what I wrote or you are incapable of understanding it.

Homosexuals molest children at a much higher rate than heterosexuals. Of course that can be empirically proven, and has been many times. “Proving a negative” has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Many scientists have studied this and come to the conclusion that homosexuals molest children at a far higher rate than heterosexuals. Many of their studies were linked to by the cite that I provided. I can only lead the horse to water - I can’t make you drink.

The answer is to compromise and legalize civil unions. But the homos have to be ballbusters about it and insist that two guys wearing leather and cowboy hats have exactly the same relationship as Ward and June Cleaver. “Gay marriage” is wrong and the public will never support it. It ain’t gonna happen.
34 On July 21st, 2006, themaiden said:
If you think that the logic turns on the presence or absence of the word “all” you are more confused than I thought. Stunning. You end up with the same problem if you state “No pigs can fly” or even, assuming that one doesn’t have a flying pig in hand, “One pig (somewhere in the universe) can fly.” But I am tired of the god-damned pig.

Your “many scientists” seems to, in fact, be one corrupt scientist who has manipulated information to justify a prejudice and has been kicked out of several scientific associations because of it. Cite someone who hasn’t been discredited. Otherwise, you’ll convince the other bigots but that is about it.

Something else makes no sense. If, as you say, gays are raping our kids, how exactly is legalizing civil unions a solution?
35 On July 22nd, 2006, Lou said:
The best solution is to tell the homosexuals to just lives their lives and shut the hell up. They can’t get married because marriage means the union of one man and one woman. Period. End of debate.

I agree with you that civil unions are not a good solution, but allowing civil unions is a compromise and that is probably where this is headed. I am a realist.

A much more important issue is the raising of children. Homosexuals should not be allowed to raise children under any circumstances. Children thrive when they are raised by one father and one mother. Not two mothers. Not one father and a hippopotamus. Not two mothers and a kangaroo. One father and one mother. All the studies bear that out. (Although I’m sure you’ll call them corrupt scientists too since you wish it weren’t true).

Homosexuals do rape kids at an alarming rate and that alone is enough reason that they should not be parents. Additionally, it is not a healthy environment to grow up in. I realize that some children are already being raised by homosexuals and I feel sorry for them. For this society to value political correctness more than children’s welfare is a disgrace.
36 On July 23rd, 2006, themaiden said:
The best solution?

Lou, if you are correct that gays are raping our kids then telling them to “lives their lives and shut the hell up” is no solution at all. Perhaps we should tell all the other rapists and murderers that same thing? Problem solved, right? No. I think not. Maybe, in fact, we should have told the blacks the same thing thirty years ago. “You can’t marry white girls and you can’t ride in the fron of the bus or drink from white water foundtains. Just shut up and live your life” There is a huge disconnect between what you claim to believe and what you offer as a solution. Something doesn’t add up, and being a realist has nothing to do with it. A realist would likely be inclined to actually solve a problem. What you suggest doesn’t even address the problem you claim to have with gay marriage. Remember, your objection to gay marriage involves gay rape of kids. Banning gay marriage doesn’t stop it. Banning civil unions wouldn’t stop it. Allowing civil unions certainly doesn’t stop it, and seems to even work counter to your ~~bigotry~~ interests. Civil unions do not prevent gay couples from raising children.

By the way, being a realists inplies having some connection to reality, which clearly you do not given that your evidence has been discredited and the scientist who produced it has been kicked out of several scientific organizations because of his distortions of fact. Yes, I will call that corrupt.
37 On July 23rd, 2006, Lou said:
Ten or twenty years from now homosexual marriage may be a reality. If that happens there will be many children of “homosexual parents” who will be horribly abused on a daily basis. They will wonder how society could have thrown them to the wolves this way. On that day, you will be responsible for having supported this.

If, God forbid, homosexuals are allowed to “marry” there will come a day - maybe 10, 20, or 30 years from now - when you will realize that I was right. But there will be no way to get the genie back in the bottle. It will be too late.
38 On July 23rd, 2006, themaiden said:
Lou, you can’t win a fight by pointing to the predictions of junk science. After all, its JUNK SCIENCE! It is a bit like threatening me with the boogie-man– ain’t no such thing. It isn’t scary. I’m not going to base my actions today on what you say will happen in twenty years based upon your reading of JUNK SCIENCE. Sorry, try again.
39 On July 28th, 2006, hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Homosexuals and Child Rape? said:
[...] But enough about Cameron. In researching this issue, mostly in response to comments to a recent post of mine, I realized that there is a larger principle at stake. The basic argument being employed turns on the idea that we can justifiably punish, or restrict, a whole class of people based upon the actions of some members of that class. The question I ask, therefore, is not “Are the gays raping our kids?” but “What if homosexuals do disproportionately rape children?” [...]
40 On August 25th, 2006, Winter said:
Even gorillas know better than you humans.

Of course, everyone sees what they want to. Just don’t “teach men so,” or I think you will be sorry.

Go and worship yourselves. You may just implode into a ball of confusion.
41 On August 25th, 2006, themaiden said:
Winter,

You just posted non-sense, but since you aren’t selling anything I can’t write it off as spam.
42 On September 18th, 2006, Wilson S. Feldon said:
I think you’re conveniently forgetting about the *reason* for the historical discord recorded in the bible. In the most ancient of times, it is biblically purported that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman (vis a vis. Adam and Eve). Then it is claimed that sin took over and caused people to deviate from this norm. This deviation is by no means holy and the biblical recording of it is only to emphasize the severity of the situation; not to justify it. In fact, laws were enacted to contain the sin and to avoid escalation. There are various laws recorded providing for their protection (Ex. 21:7; Deut. 21:10-14), and setting limits to the relation they sustained to the household to which they belonged (Gen. 21:14; 25:6). They had no authority in the family, nor could they share in the household government. The immediate cause of concubinage might be gathered from the conjugal histories of Abraham and Jacob (Gen. 16;30). But in process of time the custom of concubinage degenerated, and laws were made to restrain and regulate it (Ex. 21:7-9). Jesus has restored the sacred institution of marriage to its original character, and concubinage is ranked with the sins of fornication and adultery (Matt. 19:5-9; 1 Cor. 7:2).
43 On September 19th, 2006, themaiden said:
Hi Wilson,

Conveniently forgetting something that is irrelevant to what I wrote? That is an interesting apologetic tact.

But, secondly, BS. If the Bible mentions polygamy and sexual slavery in order to point out how bad it is, then why are the heroes in the Bible praised for their wives and slaves and why does God reward his people by giving them multiple wives and slaves (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)? Remember, David’s heart was ‘perfect’ (1_Kings 11:3-4), yet he had quite a few wives, which God had given him (2 Samuel 12:8).

Thirdly, you seem to be conveniently forgetting that the Bible is mythology, like the Illiad and is even less verifiable. What is says happened, isn’t what actually happened.
44 On September 22nd, 2006, hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Evolution isn’t theology said:
[...] Additionally, evolution does not describe how humans “developed into pair-bonded primates and how adultery violates trust“. It does not describe these things because humans are not pair-bonded primates in any strong sense. Pair-bonding is rare in primates and until very recently, it was rare in humans too. Even now, pair-bonding in humans is less common than legend has it– the world’s fastest growing religion, Islam, accepts polygyny– and where monogamy is the official norm it is pretty fuzzy in practice. ‘Cheating’ is common, even among the religious, and serial monogamy is common as well. Secondly, ‘adultery’ and ‘cheating’ are social concepts, and can be modified by individuals as they see fit. Whether or not they constitute a violation of trust depends upon those factors. Consequently, it isn’t honest to put ‘family values’ on a pedestal, and pretend that it is the end all of family organization. It isn’t. [...]
45 On October 2nd, 2006, LogicQuestion said:
Ok - I know you are against allowing only one man and one woman to marry. Can you clarify - Are you in favor of allowing any number of men and women to marry? I’m curious.
46 On October 2nd, 2006, themaiden said:
LogicQuestion,

I am unsure about the meaning of your first statement, so I’ll clarify. I am not against marriage between one man and one woman; I am against restricting marriage to that combination.

My basic position is that people in a free country– which is becoming a bit of a moot point– ought to be able to associate as they please and government should protect that right of association.
47 On October 2nd, 2006, LogicQuestion said:
Right - that’s what I said - You are ‘against allowing ONLY one man and one woman to marry’. I am asking if you are against all restrictions on marriage - essentially, in your opinion, what should be the definition or marriage?

Thanks for a good discussion topic.
48 On October 2nd, 2006, themaiden said:
LogicQuestion,

My attempt to clarify my position seems to have annoyed you. That is unfortunate, and it certainly wasn’t my intent. However, I have learned quite painfully that language is fuzzy even at best and that people will parse sentences in ways that you do not expect. So I like to try to clarify as much as possible.

That said, and perhaps this is an example of two people parsing the same sentence differently, I am not against allowing ‘ONLY one man and one woman to marry’. That is, I am not against marriages consisting of only one man and only one woman (which is a perfectly valid– I’d even argue that it is the most reasonable– way to read your statements). I am not opposed to that family structure. I am against limiting legal marriage to that family structure, to that combination.

I am not against all restrictions on marriage. There have to be some age considerations, and some consent considerations, but those, truth be told, are already covered by other statutes as would most restrictions that I’d accept.

There a couple of approaches to defining marriage. One approach is a primarily relgious one– marriage is a sacrament, two become one flesh, that sort of thing. People, as individuals, may believe as they will on such matters. But marriage also has a set of, essentially, legal contracts that go along with it. Spouses have power of attorney in many circumstances. Spouses can share insurance. Spouses can get loans together with a bit less trouble than non-spouses. I’m sure you can think of more examples. Marriage, in effect, rolls thousands of dollars worth of fees, fines, and paperwork into one relatively cheap package.

It is within this legal arena, and only within it, that government has any business. Consequently, the only definition of marriage I am willing to offer and that definition would be a list of more or less standardized legal obligations between the parties– power of attorney in case of injury, etc.

Why can’t we just settle for ‘domestic partnership’ then? Frankly, I’d like to see all marriages become domestic partnerships legally. That would keep government out of religion and religion out of government, and it doesn’t limit anyone’s right to make of marriage whatever significance he or she desires, religious or not.

Given that so many people on all sides of the issue have terribly romantic views of marriage, it is, practically speaking, probably going to be easier the expand the legal definition of ‘marriage’ than it would be to demote legal marriage. Ultimately, though, it really makes little difference as long as either ‘domestic partnership’ or ‘marriage’ encompasses all the forms that free people might be inclined to choose.
49 On October 3rd, 2006, Anton Mates said:
“That said, and perhaps this is an example of two people parsing the same sentence differently, I am not against allowing ‘ONLY one man and one woman to marry’.”

I believe you *are* parsing it differently from LogicQuestion, who’s saying you’re against allowing only [one man and one woman] to marry. IOW s/he’s agreeing that you’re against that restriction, and asking whether you’re also against any restriction on number of parties involved.

For my part I agree with you that it should be purely a legal contract so far as the government’s concerned, so I don’t care if 10 men, 6 women and 2 hermaphrodites all get married together. Though perhaps the paperwork would be a deterrent.
50 On October 4th, 2006, LogicQuestion said:
Not annoyed at all. I like this topic.

Anton is correct - I was asking if you were against ALL restrictions and I see that you are in favor of some restrictions.

That’s the logic error to me - you are upset that the government has defined marriage in a way that differs from your view but you are fine with redefining marriage in a way that (still) excludes someone else. Age for instance - you are ok with age restrictions on marriage. So 2 men and 1 woman can marry but not 1 man and a woman/girl under the age of whatever the magical number is in the state. Just as you have your reasons to allow two woman to marry, someone else has their belief that it would be ok if one of those women were under the age of consent.

It is not a religious thing for me, it is logic. My stance is keep the definition the way it is and you are saying open the marriage door to allow some in but not all.

Even if I were to agree that the current definition of 1M + 1W was ‘wrong’ to many, I’m not in favor of changing it a little to make it ‘less wrong’ to some. I don’t believe you can change it for one group but not another because as soon as you do, the remaining excluded groups/people will use that change as the basis for their argument - ‘Why them and not us’. And that would be a strong argument.

So just as an atheist and a christian are very close to the same beliefs (belief in one god vs. belief in no god) you and I are close on the marriage thing. I don’t think marriage should change at all and you think it should change a little. You would be the christian in that analogy

Thanks again
51 On October 5th, 2006, themaiden said:
Sorry, LogicQuestion, but not much of what you’ve argued makes sense.

Your first point seems to be that if I oppose some particular limitation then I must oppose all limitation or my position suffers some logical flaw; but that is a very odd position for you to take. Put the argument in the context of criminal justice and that fact should be clear. If I oppose the criminalization of some activity does that mean that I must oppose all laws that criminalize activities? No. Obviously. I can oppose a 55mph speed limit, and not thereby commit myself to opposing all speed limits whatsoever. I can oppose certain drug possession laws and not thereby commit myself to opposing all drug laws. I can still support driving under the influence laws, for example. To argue, as you do, that I’m still excluding someone so my position somehow doesn’t count is just nonsense.

Yours is not a position based in logic, dear LogicQuestion. If anything, yours is a position based in a logical fallacy called the slippery slope, which is a kind of over-extrapolation based in overgeneralization coupled with the ignoring of relevant elements of the equation. Your second point, that we should change the legal definition of marriage because then we’d have to change it more… and more… and more… and more to accommodate every possible idea of marriage that can be invented, is a stereotypical example of the slippery slope fallacy. You are brushing aside some obviously quite relevant elements of the equation– like consent, like civil liberties.
52 On October 5th, 2006, LogicQuestion said:
Nice response.

My point was this. Let’s say there are 10 proposed changes to marriage that are similar in nature. I am against all 10 and you are against 9 of them. We are close to agreeing on the topic but my stance seems more logical (to me) since I am not picking and choosing what changes are accepted and which ones are not. You are against allowing other changes that are similar to yours. I consider your stance of allowing 2 men to marry similar to changing the age of consent by a year or two.

I do believe it is a slippery slope. But I’m not using the slippery slope to support my argument, I’m just predicting what would happen. A true slippery slope defense would be if I agreed with you but didn’t want to implement the change because of what would happen next. Much like people don’t need automatic weapons or partial-birth abortions, but neither side would ever give up the fight to keep each one because it would erode their ability to keep ‘regular’ guns and abortions.
I don’t believe it is an overgeneralization to say that if the definition of marriage was changed (to your definition) that the courthouses would be flooded with people wanting to implement the other 9. Then you and I would be on the same side against them!
53 On October 6th, 2006, themaiden said:
LogicQuestion,

Why is it more ‘logical’ to support more change, or broader change, than less? Or, why is it more ‘logical’ to support the removal of more restriction rather than less? Why, in fact, is picking and choosing a problem?

Let’s say that we were talking about the age of consent for marriage, as in an example you mentioned. I argue that the age of consent should be lowered by a few years to, say, fifteen. Do you then argue that it is more ‘logical’ to reduce the age of consent even further, even to the point of eliminating it altogether thereby allowing a seventy year old adult to legally marry a three year old child, because otherwise we’d be “picking and choosing”? I kinda hope not; but you are using the same argument in a different context.

The problem, I think, is that you have convinced yourself that the number of restrictions/changes is the critical factor. You consequently seem to be not thinking at all about what is actually the important factor– the reasons for particular changes. What matters is why one would make a particular change, not how many changes there are if done one way compared to the number of changes if done another way. If you were building a house, would the house be better just because you made a lot of changes to the floor plan? No, of course not. If you like the original plan, then maybe only one or two changes would turn the trick. Making a hundred changes wouldn’t make anything better, and it might make it worse. Your insistence that more is more logical just doesn’t make any sense.

The slippery slope fallacy has nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree with the change in question. The only things that matter are 1)that you cite some chain of consequences that must follow a particular change, without arguing each step in the chain, and 2)that you oppose the issue in question because of that chain of consequences. This is exactly what you are doing. The fact that you are “predicting what would happen” and then concluding that we can’t make a particular set of changes because of that prediction makes your argument a slippery slope; and because you haven’t defended the steps in the chain, it is fallacious. I’d even argue that you can’t defend very many steps in that chain because in very short order you’ll smash into concepts like ‘rape’ and ‘child abuse’ that will stop the slide cold. You might, for example, be able to make a case for lowering the age of consent by a few years, but you won’t be able to make a case for lowering it by a dozen years. Arguing that “Well, we lowered the age of consent by two years, so we should therefore lower it by two more… and two more… and two more…” just wouldn’t work, yet that is about all your slope is based upon.

And yes, we may end up on the same side and in opposition to some future proposed change. Why is that a problem? As I stated earlier, that I oppose, or support, one law doesn’t mean I have to oppose, or support, all remotely similar laws. Each has to be taken on its own merits.
54 On October 12th, 2006, Morons said:
You all sound religious, pretty sad. Being afraid of homosexuals is sad and homophobia typically because you are afraid of your own homosexual tendenies. Allowing gay marriage will do nothing to society, it already exists in the form of a personal merger, public unions etc. Religions are just doing this to control society, they find topics to make people feel that religions are saving the world. Wake up! Religion will end you in a hell of your own, they are not godly but of the other end.
55 On October 26th, 2006, SamD said:
Sorry to back-track, a symptom of joining the conversation so late

“marriage means the union of one man and one woman.”

What is the truth-condition of this statement? Can Lou (or anyone else) express this in way that is non-circular and at the same time preserve the ‘objectively true’ meaning that is so important to them? I think not.
56 On October 26th, 2006, themaiden said:
Hi SamD,

Its never too late. Besides, this post currently gets more traffic than anything else on the site. I guess I hit a nerve. I’m thinking of doing a part II. We’ll see.

Unfortunately, Lou seems to have disappeared, so your question may remain unanswered. Perhaps someone else will step up to the plate, though.
57 On November 2nd, 2006, hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » A secular argument against same sex marriage? said:
[...] Governments sanction marriage for a number of different reasons, most of them quite obviously religious, some of them civil or legal, all of them filtered through to us via convoluted channels of common law, church decree, and tradition. And damned near all of them are archaic, a point I don’t intend to argue right now. I will argue though that government’s role in this matter ought to be limited, and that those limits are defined by the legal and civil considerations, and that the whole enterprise should be driven by a concern for individual liberties. I hasten to add that those considerations are considerable more complicated than the naive idea that civil marriage protects women. I’ll quote from comments I made in another thread. There a couple of approaches to defining marriage. One approach is a primarily religious one– marriage is a sacrament, two become one flesh, that sort of thing. People, as individuals, may believe as they will on such matters. But marriage also has a set of, essentially, legal contracts that go along with it. Spouses have power of attorney in many circumstances. Spouses can share insurance. Spouses can get loans together with a bit less trouble than non-spouses. I’m sure you can think of more examples. Marriage, in effect, rolls thousands of dollars worth of fees, fines, and paperwork into one relatively cheap package. [...]
58 On February 21st, 2007, hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Gay Marriage and the Collapse of Western Civilization said:
[...] Now, lets step back a moment and ask, “If one can infer, and easily infer at that, that marriage should be heterosexual and monogamous from the facts of human reproduction alone, why has monogamy been the least common marital pattern throughout history? Why, is monogamy extremely rare in all of the animals, of which we are one?” The answer is that in most cases you get greater reproductive success– more babies– with polygyny than with monogamy. And to anticipate an objection, in the days before modern medicine, volume was an important factor in human reproduction. With infant mortality rates several times higher than today, more babies meant more success. Humans would not have depended upon volume the way, say, mice do, but nor would it work to gamble on fewer children over many children. [...]
59 On April 17th, 2007, hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Blogs for Jihad! said:
[...] We hate you for pushing your ideology into the public sphere by dressing it in sophistry about culture, civilization, and the ‘natural’ vs. the ‘unnatural’. [...]
60 On May 9th, 2007, hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Help! Help! Save the children! said:
[...] Gay Marriage and the Collapse of Western Civilization A secular argument against same sex marriage? Gay marriage is the end of marriage. Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman [...]
61 On May 18th, 2007, LittleOleLady asks a few questions | hell's handmaiden said:
[...] At times, a belief in God may have attenuated some vicious behavior or another. At other times, belief in God has done just the opposite, as when ‘God’ orders a holy war against infidels or heretics, or just commands his people to kidnap, rape, and pillage the lands occupied by the heathens, as repeated so often in the Old Testament. The point being that belief in God doesn’t make people ‘good’ in any consistent way. [...]
62 On May 31st, 2007, A secular argument against same sex marriage? | hell's handmaiden said:
[...] than the naive idea that civil marriage protects women. I’ll quote from comments I made in another thread. There a couple of approaches to defining marriage. One approach is a primarily religious one– [...]
63 On August 19th, 2007, Jon said:
A very interesting article. I never knew so many different forms of marriage, of what we Americans have dubbed, plagurism as in Big Love.
64 On August 19th, 2007, themaiden said:
Hi Jon,

Actually, there are more varieties than I listed. I’ve been thinking about doing a part two.
65 On August 22nd, 2007, ThirstyJon said:
It is interesting to me that everybody knows that marriage is between male and female. Whether it be one spouse or many, everyone knows it is about male and female.

Everyone knows that trying to define it as a same sex thing is a CHANGE in the commonly accepted definition.

Whether you or for or against “homosexual marriage”, everyone knows that it is a CHANGE to accept it.

Marriage is between man and woman. Common Sense.

ThirstJon
freedomthirst.com
66 On August 22nd, 2007, ThirstyJon said:
Quote:

# 2 On July 16th, 2006, Daniel Schumacher said:

Great point! It is always a big clue when somebody with a weak argument says: “It’s always been that way.” Such people rarely have studied their own subject matter and are really stating an opinion. Many today make similar arguments (founding fathers were devout, fundamentalist Christians, etc.) My personal opinion is that government should completely get out of the marriage business and marriage should again be a strictly private ritual with no legal significance. The State does have an interest in property, issues of parenting, education, etc, and as such legal rights for parents, children, and for any adults who enter into civil unions should be supported with no regard for the gender or sexual orientation of the parties. Since when does the goverment regulate sexual activity?? Why is sexual orientation tied to any legal right?

I don’t agree with all of this, but I do agree that it would ease the situation if the state was less involved with marriage. Then those who disagree with “gay marriage” could continue to disagree without violating their conscience, and those who want a “gay marriage” can say to themselves “who cares what they think?”

ThirstyJon
freedomthirst.com
67 On August 23rd, 2007, themaiden said:
ThirstyJon,

You mustn’t confuse ‘common sense’ with ‘common’.

Making babies requires a man and a woman, and marriage is certainly tied to that fact, but mostly marriage is about social structure and that is a lot more flexible than people realize.
68 On August 23rd, 2007, ThirstyJon said:

I understand your point. I only meant that the definition of marriage is so widely accepted that it is “common sense” to recognize that the meaning is almost universal. In fact, the “male - female” element of the definition would be universal if not for a current agenda to change that.

The only thing that will happen if the “current agenda” succeeds is we will develop another way to describe an ordinary marriage between male and female. Maybe it will be called a “traditional” marriage. Maybe it will be called a “straight” marriage. I don’t know how it will go. But it will be abundantly clear that they are different.

I would be very surprised if the “current agenda” succeeded in hiding or dissolving the awareness of that difference.

ThirstyJon
freedomthirst.com
69 On August 23rd, 2007, themaiden said:
Thirsty,

I’m not sure. It may play out the way you describe. There is a good chance that it will.

Personally, I care less about what we end up calling things than about how we treat people. That said, there could be a kind of emotional response to ‘marriage’ as opposed to ‘civil union’ that is very important to some people.
70 On August 30th, 2007, coos said:
Luckely I’m belgian and I can marry a man if i want to….
71 On December 1st, 2007, sara said:
i was just reading some as the things that were written in this article and the comments. i would first like to say that i am glad there is a place were people can go and voice their opinions and tell people why they think they are wrong in what i hope is calm respectful way, unless your views happen to disagree with the views on this website right. it makes me laugh that it seems like everyone has the right to say and do whatever they want except christians. which for the record, people should be allowed to express their opinions, i believe that, even if i happen to disagree. i just wanna be able to do the same thing without being attacked or treated like i am stupid.musluims are allowed to pray openly in public schools but one christian kid says a little prayer to themselves at lunch or dares to bring a bible to school and its turns in to worls war three. i am so sick of everyone else’s voice mattering more then mine. what are you afraid off really, i mean you say you will ban anyone who disagrees with you. why so scared, afraid that the people who disagre with you may actually have a point or at the very least have reasons for believing what they believe.

p.s-go ahead and ban me if you want. i won’t be back to your web site anyway
72 On December 1st, 2007, themaiden said:
Sara,

I do take some offense at your comment, but I won’t be banning you. Whether you come back or not is your worry. I take offense because you can’t support your accusation, and it is a very unfair accusation.

1) I don’t delete any genuine comments. Only what is clearly spam gets deleted. This means that your assertion that everyone but Christians get to have their say is nonsense.

2) Browse the site. Most of the not-so-calm, not-so-respectful, and I-think-you-are-stupid comments come from the Christians, so climb down off the pedestal. That doesn’t apply to this thread, actually. Most people have be relatively civil in this one. Having read every comment on this site, though, I am not at all sympathetic to the Christians as ‘just wanting to have their say in a nice civil manner” idea.

3) Yes, people can have their say. That very same principle also gives me or anyone else the right to criticize that ’say’. You can’t escape criticism by appealing to “I just want to have my opinion”. Guess what? So do I, but I am sane enough to realize that people are going to argue with me. Hell, I want people to argue with me.
73 On December 2nd, 2007, Aaron said:
Don’t worry Maiden I’ll still argue with you. Unfortunately I happen to agree with you on this particular subject. I have to get off of these religious threads. I will be reserecting a couple of your old threads on anarchism and gun control in the next day or so.

Sara you said “i mean you say you will ban anyone who disagrees with you.” When did he say that. I have been argueing with him for about a month now and he hasn’t banned me yet. I am not a Christian, maybe that is why. I am sarcastic though, and that is almost as bad.
74 On December 2nd, 2007, themaiden said:
Aaron,

Good catch. Exactly where in the hell did she get the idea that I’d ban anyone who disagrees, much less that I’ve actually stated that as policy. That makes me very angry. I’ve never said anything of the sort. I have just the opposite policy in fact. I’ve never deleted a single genuine comment from this blog, except the occasional duplicate. Yeah, you argue with me, Aaron, but browse the site enough and you’ll come across some very rude, very nasty, very insulting attacks upon poor little me and, contrary to my policy, apparently, I haven’t deleted them. So Sara, why the BS?

And, Aaron, resurrect away. I promise to respond but I’m not sure how much response you’ll get for the next week or two. I will get to it though.