1431: "Marriage"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:04 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:It's the rapist and his victim for 50 shekels, I have a little problem with that. That was established by God's decree too. That part of the Book of Deuteronomy is a series of mitzvot (commands) to the Israelites regarding how they ought to conduct themselves in Canaan, the land promised by Yahweh, God of Israel. Maybe you feel differently.


In context, that's more of a "you break it, you bought it" than "plan B for getting married" - the sexual politics of women requiring support from a man in order to survive (aside from an exceptional few) aside, being given responsibility for the woman's well-being and made to pay a non-trivial price in addition is a step up from being able to rape a woman, leaving her cast out without a means of support and not have any real consequences...


It's a twisted mentality that exists today. We've gone from Biblical "if you do rape, you'll have to marry her but then she's yours and you have the right to unlimited sex on demand. It's like calling dibs on the pretty ones" to "here's a list of things you ladies shouldn't be doing or you'll get raped (and it's your fault if that happens)."

What about, "guys. DON'T RAPE. If there's a vague area where you're not sure if there was consent, every act should be one where there was none given"...? How can the religious, who tout themselves as being the moral ones (heh) not have figured this out after hundreds of years?

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Kit. » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:17 pm UTC

Zassounotsukushi wrote:Race in a partnership between and man and a woman has nothing to do with fundamental attraction. If you like women, you should like women of all races approximately equal in terms of pure lust.

If you want to bang them and run away, yes.

But if you decide to invest into your children more resources than just your sperm, you'd better try to choose a partner whose genes are good. Normal. The most abundant (as they are supposed to be the most fitting). Average. Producing the bearer of an average look as well.

Which means that if you were not used to see many Asian chicks in your childhood, you would be unlikely to consider having one of them as your long-term partner. Unless you are a pervert, that is.

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Anyone can anticipate what would be the next step after these two, say, in the next 50 years ?

Zach Weiner (SMBC comics) regularly does.

Jackpot777 wrote:What about, "guys. DON'T RAPE. If there's a vague area where you're not sure if there was consent, every act should be one where there was none given"...? How can the religious, who tout themselves as being the moral ones (heh) not have figured this out after hundreds of years?

They did, but it doesn't work this way. Sometimes some males are just too desperate.

scotty2haughty
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:53 am UTC
Location: 3 feet from gold

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby scotty2haughty » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:31 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:It's the rapist and his victim for 50 shekels, I have a little problem with that. That was established by God's decree too. That part of the Book of Deuteronomy is a series of mitzvot (commands) to the Israelites regarding how they ought to conduct themselves in Canaan, the land promised by Yahweh, God of Israel. Maybe you feel differently.


In context, that's more of a "you break it, you bought it" than "plan B for getting married" - the sexual politics of women requiring support from a man in order to survive (aside from an exceptional few) aside, being given responsibility for the woman's well-being and made to pay a non-trivial price in addition is a step up from being able to rape a woman, leaving her cast out without a means of support and not have any real consequences...


It's a twisted mentality that exists today. We've gone from Biblical "if you do rape, you'll have to marry her but then she's yours and you have the right to unlimited sex on demand. It's like calling dibs on the pretty ones" to "here's a list of things you ladies shouldn't be doing or you'll get raped (and it's your fault if that happens)."

What about, "guys. DON'T RAPE. If there's a vague area where you're not sure if there was consent, every act should be one where there was none given"...? How can the religious, who tout themselves as being the moral ones (heh) not have figured this out after hundreds of years?



See also Exodus 22:16-17. The father can refuse the offending man from marrying his daughter.
/s/

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Foelhe » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:36 pm UTC

Maybe not the best thread to sign up on, but what the hell.

slinches wrote:The real solution is to divorce the legal status from "marriage" itself and then reassess the need for each special grant of status in the law and who should be eligible for them. But that would take a major rewrite of long established law, so it'll never happen.


That's a ton of effort for not much payoff. Legal terms have to be precisely defined, if you change a term you have to rewrite every law that has that term in it. In this case that would include the US Constitution, just to give you a clear idea of how huge an undertaking that would be.

cutterx2202 wrote:I'm trying to understand why our beloved author would risk alienating literally at least half his base for some fuzzy correlation at best. Dilbert brought up the topic, albeit in a much more abrasive manner and lost a large chunk of followers. Doesn't seem like a bright business decision, especially with nothing really being accomplished morally, either, for either argument.

Race and "sexual preference" are completely different issues, both socially and scientifically.


He's a scientist. He's comparing data. If that bothers you, I doubt he's going to change or ignore the data just to make everyone happy. That would make him a pretty lousy scientist.

jpers36 wrote:As late as the mid-middle ages, there was no such thing as a purely civil/contract law/social activity with no religious impact. The separation of church and state is a more recent phenomenon than that.


Yep, happy to disagree with both sides on this argument. People have used marriage for legal and religious purposes for over a thousand years. People were getting married in tabernacles, nobles were getting married so they could separate the heirs from the bastards. Anyone with a grasp of history should know that neither of these ideas are exactly new.

Zassounotsukushi wrote:Also, reading this chart, someone who is 70 years old today would be nearly 95% likely to have disapproved of interracial marriage when they were 20. That is extraordinarily hard to believe. The average age of senators today is 63.


Fifty years ago was 1964. Martin Luther King Jr was shot in 1968. And he wasn't shot because most people agreed with him. I'm not saying most 70 year olds disapprove of interracial marriage now, but when they were twenty, before the Civil Rights Movement? Seems like a pretty safe bet.

Tyndmyr wrote:It is my experience that a great many opponents to gay marriage have a similar viewpoint, with a significant subset thinking that seperating out the legal aspect from the marriage/social aspect is desirable. IE, you all get civil unions for legal matters, but the church or what not handles the marriage stuff.

The pro-gay marriage camp, however, tends to view such proposals as giving them something that's second rate. So...there's a gap in viewpoints here that's hard to bridge.


Also yep. Compromise is a nice idea most of the time, but not on this one. If I decide I want to have hamburgers for dinner, and my next door neighbor thinks I should have salad because it's healther, at the end of the day I'm probably going to be eating a hamburger. I don't see a huge amount of difference between that and this. Well, I do, but nothing that makes me think I should compromise more.

Kit. wrote:They did, but it doesn't work this way. Sometimes some males are just too desperate.


Speaking as a guy, I hate the idea that I'd totally rape someone if I got desperate enough. I'm not an animal.

operagost
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:23 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby operagost » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:43 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
slinches wrote:The real solution is to divorce the legal status from "marriage" itself and then reassess the need for each special grant of status in the law and who should be eligible for them.

That's supposing that same-sex couples only want their legal status, but not social status to be recognized.

Which I doubt. Humans are social animals.

You need to explain this. What do you want, laws to put people in jail if they don't invite gay couples to their social functions?

operagost
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:23 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby operagost » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:46 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
cutterx2202 wrote:I'm trying to understand why our beloved author would risk alienating literally at least half his base for some fuzzy correlation at best. Dilbert brought up the topic, albeit in a much more abrasive manner and lost a large chunk of followers. Doesn't seem like a bright business decision, especially with nothing really being accomplished morally, either, for either argument.

Race and "sexual preference" are completely different issues, both socially and scientifically.

He's alienating mayby 10% of his existing audience, and I suspect that he like most of the rest of us will not be sad to see those homophobes go.

No, actually he's alienating the 50-60% of his audience that understand statistics.

speising
Posts: 2367
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby speising » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:46 pm UTC

also, i believe these rape provisions were used to actually marry out of love, in a time when marriages were arranged. On Lombok (Indonesia), where arranged marriages are the norm today, we were told that young couples perform the dirty deed and let themselves get caught so the girl is spoiled and the father does have no other choice than to marry her to the guy.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Foelhe » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:47 pm UTC

operagost wrote:No, actually he's alienating the 50-60% of his audience that understand statistics.


How, exactly?

jpers36
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby jpers36 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:49 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:How can the religious, who tout themselves as being the moral ones (heh) ...


I think you misunderstand the message of Christianity.

Regardless, it should be pointed out that your arguments are all regarding religious doctrine and you've as of yet made no political argument whatsoever. If that's your intent that's fine, but it seems like maybe there's a political point you're trying to make that's hidden in all of this? I mean, you took vortighast to task for an aside s/he made in the process of making a larger political statement. If there's not a political point to what you're saying, it seems pretty petty, doesn't it?

operagost
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:23 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby operagost » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:49 pm UTC

I'm wondering what a chart based on polygamy would look like.

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:49 pm UTC

scotty2haughty wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:It's the rapist and his victim for 50 shekels, I have a little problem with that. That was established by God's decree too. That part of the Book of Deuteronomy is a series of mitzvot (commands) to the Israelites regarding how they ought to conduct themselves in Canaan, the land promised by Yahweh, God of Israel. Maybe you feel differently.


In context, that's more of a "you break it, you bought it" than "plan B for getting married" - the sexual politics of women requiring support from a man in order to survive (aside from an exceptional few) aside, being given responsibility for the woman's well-being and made to pay a non-trivial price in addition is a step up from being able to rape a woman, leaving her cast out without a means of support and not have any real consequences...


It's a twisted mentality that exists today. We've gone from Biblical "if you do rape, you'll have to marry her but then she's yours and you have the right to unlimited sex on demand. It's like calling dibs on the pretty ones" to "here's a list of things you ladies shouldn't be doing or you'll get raped (and it's your fault if that happens)."

What about, "guys. DON'T RAPE. If there's a vague area where you're not sure if there was consent, every act should be one where there was none given"...? How can the religious, who tout themselves as being the moral ones (heh) not have figured this out after hundreds of years?



See also Exodus 22:16-17. The father can refuse the offending man from marrying his daughter.


He can. Which also means he can allow it.

She gets no say in the matter.

I'm not understanding how any can even be a little OK with this idea as being part of a moral code, emphasis on moral, that people are handing out in leaflets (see past link where rape is blamed on women not dressing as the Bible suggests) and supporting to this day.

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:50 pm UTC

jpers36 wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:How can the religious, who tout themselves as being the moral ones (heh) ...


I think you misunderstand the message of Christianity.

Regardless, it should be pointed out that your arguments are all regarding religious doctrine and you've as of yet made no political argument whatsoever. If that's your intent that's fine, but it seems like maybe there's a political point you're trying to make that's hidden in all of this? I mean, you took vortighast to task for an aside s/he made in the process of making a larger political statement. If there's not a political point to what you're saying, it seems pretty petty, doesn't it?


100% my intent. What's political about saying "rape is wrong. Stop making it the victim's fault, at all, to any extent" and pointing out that religion does just that?

If other people are mixing their religion into politics, that's their doing. I don't have a horse in that race.

So: specifically. What message, in part or in whole, did I miss?
Last edited by Jackpot777 on Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:53 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

armandoalvarez
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:39 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby armandoalvarez » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:51 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Agreed with slinches completely. Any special status of marriage that has to do with raising children should occur automatically upon parenthood, no formal marriage required. Any special status of marriage that has to do with cohabitation / sharing of resources / etc (e.g. for tax purposes) should occur automatically upon cohabitation, no formal marriage required. (And should be applicable to people cohabitating for non-romantic purposes as well; if two friends/siblings/whatever want to buy a house together and share food and other expenses together the way a married couple would, they deserve whatever tax status the married couple would get for that too. Maybe require a formal "incorporation of household" for this or something, if necessary). Wherever possible, special statuses should be granted one by one as soon as the relevant facts obtain, without any formal procedure required.

I don't really understand your objection to marriages or what you think you're accomplishing by granting statuses based on what people do rather than a formal ceremony. The reason lots of people don't get married when they're dating/living together/having sex etc. is because they don't want the commitment of marriage. What you're saying is that the government should look at facts about they're relationships to try to figure out their intent. That's messy. The point of legal marriage is that there's this default package of contracts that most people want to undertake with their spouses (supporting each other; sharing their property; being legal next of kin; living together) that most people don't want with others. For the most part, you can get married but contract out of the societal defaults with a prenuptial agreement. (And you could also contract for some of the provisions of marriage without getting married - ex. you could draw up a legally binding mutual financial support contract.) The reason "palimony" hasn't really caught on is that absent explicit formal contracting, it's very hard to determine which of these formal contracts people wanted when they entered into their relationships and most people who do want these commitments still get married.
Very few people who live together who aren't romantic couples act anything like a married couple in terms of sharing property. If we had more, say, monasteries where people lived together and mutually supported each other and shared all their property for a lifelong commitment, we would have in addition to the current tax statuses (married filing jointly, married filing separately, head of household, and single) a status of "people holding property as a community." But that's rare, so there's no need for that.
It is relatively common for people to live together romantically but not be married but share all their property as though they were married, but usually their reason for not getting married is they don't want that kind of commitment, so what would society gain by trying to tax them as though they were married? Yes, sometimes they would pay higher taxes, but you'd still have to come up with some sort of legal test to distinguish them from simple roommates (or a romantic couple that lives together but keeps their finances separate) and courts hate having fuzzy legal lines. Your idea that legal statuses should happen as soon as the facts occur is mostly just a boon for family law trial attorneys and nobody else.
I guess your "incorporation of household" would solve the fuzzy line problem, but who would sign up for that who isn't currently married? Presumably the romantic couples who aren't married aren't married because they don't want a legal commitment (or are in same-sex relationships, but the solution to that is same-sex marriages, not abolish all marriages). There aren't that many people who aren't romantically involved who want a lifelong legal commitment to each other to justify replacing marriage with an "incorporation of household" status.
Some things, like hospital visitation, inheritance, etc, might require special registration of those statuses, but seriously those should be done explicitly anyway; family shouldn't always get visitation rights (and the power to make decisions over an unconscious patient) automatically, what if that person hated their family and would never want them deciding anything for them, or even seeing them in their vulnerable state?

That's a societal default. The vast majority of married people who don't have wills, living wills, or powers of attorney want their spouses to be their next of kin in terms of visitation, inheritance, and medical decision-making. The vast majority of people who aren't married but have adult children and don't have those documents want their kids to get their stuff and make their medical decisions for them. The vast majority of people w/o the wills and powers of attorney who don't have kids and aren't married want their parents or siblings to have those rights and powers. That's why we have the defaults. If you don't like the default, you can write up a will or a power of a attorney or a living will right now. Now, maybe you have some polling data that shows that, no, most married people want their siblings to inherit most of their stuff and make their medical decisions, or most unmarried people who don't have kids want their second cousin to inherit their stuff and make their medical decisions. But I doubt that's the case. What is your proposal: everyone at 18 years old is forced to write a will and living will and review them annually? Who does that benefit? Most people don't write wills and living wills because they're OK with the defaults.
Legal marriage is a terrible way of handling basically everything it handles, and it should be abolished from law completely. If religious groups want to continue performing legally irrelevant "marriage ceremonies", that's their business, and they can exclude whoever they want from their private religious rites

The current system isn't perfect, but it works a lot better than the system you're proposing. The combination of your fuzzy-line-palimony system ("special statuses should be granted one by one as soon as the relevant facts obtain, without any formal procedure required") and removal of societal defaults ("family shouldn't always get visitation rights (and the power to make decisions over an unconscious patient) automatically, what if that person hated their family and would never want them deciding anything for them, or even seeing them in their vulnerable state?") just means a lot of work for family-law attorneys. I don't see any benefit.
Last edited by armandoalvarez on Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:01 pm UTC, edited 4 times in total.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Kit. » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:51 pm UTC

operagost wrote:
Kit. wrote:
slinches wrote:The real solution is to divorce the legal status from "marriage" itself and then reassess the need for each special grant of status in the law and who should be eligible for them.

That's supposing that same-sex couples only want their legal status, but not social status to be recognized.

Which I doubt. Humans are social animals.

You need to explain this. What do you want, laws to put people in jail if they don't invite gay couples to their social functions?

Exactly the opposite.

I want people to be aware of some of their limitations that cannot be lifted just by rewriting some legalese.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2068
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby cellocgw » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:52 pm UTC

vortighast wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:It's the rapist and his victim for 50 shekels, I have a little problem with that. That was established by God's decree too. That part of the Book of Deuteronomy is a series of mitzvot (commands) to the Israelites regarding how they ought to conduct themselves in Canaan, the land promised by Yahweh, God of Israel. Maybe you feel differently.


In context, that's more of a "you break it, you bought it" than "plan B for getting married" - the sexual politics of women requiring support from a man in order to survive (aside from an exceptional few) aside, being given responsibility for the woman's well-being and made to pay a non-trivial price in addition is a step up from being able to rape a woman, leaving her cast out without a means of support and not have any real consequences...



Exactly. The same with divorce: God has always hated divorce, but if the people are going to do it regardless, it's better to institute provisions to best protect all parties involved. Jesus in turn corrects the faulty views that because God made provisions for these that they were acceptable.


Ummm,... well, no. If that were the case, how come the Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce? The only allowed option is annulment, which is a twisted piece of logic that rivals that of the best Talmudic lawyers' output.

Chirp it, I got trolled. I hearby swear by all things treeish not to respond to religion arguments again.
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

MGitsfullofsheep
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:16 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby MGitsfullofsheep » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:53 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Anyone can anticipate what would be the next step after these two, say, in the next 50 years ?

Zach Weiner (SMBC comics) regularly does.


Hum, I have not noticed that, I have not read all of them, though.

It's easy to find SMBC on marriage, e.g. on ohnorobot with keyword marriage.
The only ones I could find on topic are 1748 and 2622 on gay marriage, but it's not anticipation.

Anyone can anticipate what would be the next step after these two, say, in the next 50 years ?

Any specific links ?

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby mathmannix » Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:03 pm UTC

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Anyone can anticipate what would be the next step after these two, say, in the next 50 years ?


It will probably be something that the traditionalists/religious of us are currently utterly opposed to, and the liberals here might currently be in support of (or at least wouldn't think it should be illegal), but that most people today wouldn't even be able to think of. Predicting the future is usually hard, except for sometimes predicting it to be mostly the same, then you're sometimes right at least. I know people who ask, why didn't the founding fathers put such-and-such in the Constitution, but then that's why there are amendments. Most people don't expect society to change, at least in the direction that it will change. So it's hard to say what the next analogous controversy would be.

Or it could be people marrying robots.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

jpers36
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby jpers36 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:11 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:100% my intent. What's political about saying "rape is wrong. Stop making it the victim's fault, at all, to any extent" and pointing out that religion does just that?


No one said "rape is wrong" is a political statement. Vortighast identified as someone who "believes marriage is a holy institution between a man and a woman established by God" and somehow you thought yourself qualified to extrapolate and judge their whole belief system from that. And from there, condemn all "religion" for supposedly condoning rape? Come on, man.

Jackpot777 wrote:So: specifically. What message, in part or in whole, did I miss?


The message of Christianity -- the good news of Jesus -- is emphatically not that followers of Christ have the moral high ground. The message is that everyone's broken and there's a way to be healed. You can agree or disagree with that, but if you're engaging with something other than this you're not engaging with the gospel.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Kit. » Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:12 pm UTC

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Anyone can anticipate what would be the next step after these two, say, in the next 50 years ?

Any specific links ?

This was the last one: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3500

This one is probably closer to what you want: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3434

jgh
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:04 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby jgh » Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:15 pm UTC

Weren't there any states were same-sex marriage wasn't technically illegal because it hadn't occured to the lawmakers to actually make it illegal? Same-sex marriage wasn't actually illegal in England&Wales until 1971 after two women presented themselves at a registry office and challenged the registrar to point out where in the 1949 Marriage Act it required the couple to be of different sexes. Some US states inherited their legal code from England&Wales, so it wouldn't surprise me to find a few that were still based on, eg, the 1753 Marriage Act.

speising
Posts: 2367
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby speising » Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:16 pm UTC

jpers36 wrote:The message of Christianity -- the good news of Jesus -- is emphatically not that followers of Christ have the moral high ground. The message is that everyone's broken and there's a way to be healed. You can agree or disagree with that, but if you're engaging with something other than this you're not engaging with the gospel.

i don't want to say that's wrong, but it certainly isn't how a significant amount of christians see themselves.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby mathmannix » Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:29 pm UTC

jgh wrote:Weren't there any states were same-sex marriage wasn't technically illegal because it hadn't occured to the lawmakers to actually make it illegal? Same-sex marriage wasn't actually illegal in England&Wales until 1971 after two women presented themselves at a registry office and challenged the registrar to point out where in the 1949 Marriage Act it required the couple to be of different sexes. Some US states inherited their legal code from England&Wales, so it wouldn't surprise me to find a few that were still based on, eg, the 1753 Marriage Act.


Exactly, so whatever the next "thing" is (for argument's sake, let's say marriage between humans and humanoid robots that can legally be considered artificial "men" or "women") probably doesn't have any law against it, because it never occurred to lawmakers either.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

Mikeski
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Mikeski » Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:36 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Anyone can anticipate what would be the next step after these two, say, in the next 50 years ?

It will probably be something that the traditionalists/religious of us are currently utterly opposed to, and the liberals here might currently be in support of (or at least wouldn't think it should be illegal),

True.
mathmannix wrote:... but that most people today wouldn't even be able to think of.

Probably false. Interracial and homosexual relationships have existed for thousands and thousands of years. There are other types of relationships that have existed for thousands and thousands of years which we currently disallow. It's far more likely that we'll see a push for (non-procreative) incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage before we see people pushing laws to allow marrying intelligent smartphone apps or Alpha-Centaurians or their own vat-grown clones.

But also true, just in the wider sense. How do the legal aspects of marriage hold up once we start allowing marriage not based (theoretically) on heterosexual procreative families? If we can have polygamous bisexual marriages, do we keep the "not required to testify against your spouse in court" rule when an entire drug-running gang or embezzling board-of-directors marries itself? (I'm already waiting for the first non-amorous homosexual marriage between criminals just for this purpose.)
Last edited by Mikeski on Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:50 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

quietahem
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:18 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby quietahem » Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:38 pm UTC

jgh wrote:Weren't there any states were same-sex marriage wasn't technically illegal because it hadn't occured to the lawmakers to actually make it illegal? Same-sex marriage wasn't actually illegal in England&Wales until 1971 after two women presented themselves at a registry office and challenged the registrar to point out where in the 1949 Marriage Act it required the couple to be of different sexes. Some US states inherited their legal code from England&Wales, so it wouldn't surprise me to find a few that were still based on, eg, the 1753 Marriage Act.


As I understand it, the marriage law in England and Wales didn't explicitly exclude same-sex couples until the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, but the courts still interpreted it that way. There was a famous case called Corbett v Corbett in 1971, in which it was ruled that a marriage between a trans woman and a cis man was void, because the trans woman was legally considered to be a man. If I recall correctly, the case mostly revolved around the legal status of trans people (which hadn't really been considered by the courts or Parliament before) and didn't take seriously the idea that the couple could still be married even if they were both legally men.

However, same-sex marriage was never explicitly outlawed in New Mexico or the Mexican state of Quintana Roo, so it was eventually allowed in both of those jurisdictions without any changes to the law.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Kit. » Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:56 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:If we can have polygamous bisexual marriages, do we keep the "not required to testify against your spouse in court" rule when an entire drug-running gang or embezzling board-of-directors marries itself?

This is one of the dangers of decoupling the legal status from what it was initially meant to protect (predictable human feelings of kinship).

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:03 pm UTC

speising wrote:
jpers36 wrote:The message of Christianity -- the good news of Jesus -- is emphatically not that followers of Christ have the moral high ground. The message is that everyone's broken and there's a way to be healed. You can agree or disagree with that, but if you're engaging with something other than this you're not engaging with the gospel.

i don't want to say that's wrong, but it certainly isn't how a significant amount of christians see themselves.

Even if they see themselves as broken sinners, they certainly believe that the Bible is morally good and correct. And so pointing out morally reprehensible things in the Bible is still a pretty valid criticism of fundamentalist Christianity.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Foelhe » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:10 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
mathmannix wrote:
MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Anyone can anticipate what would be the next step after these two, say, in the next 50 years ?

It will probably be something that the traditionalists/religious of us are currently utterly opposed to, and the liberals here might currently be in support of (or at least wouldn't think it should be illegal),

True.
mathmannix wrote:... but that most people today wouldn't even be able to think of.

Probably false. Interracial and homosexual relationships have existed for thousands and thousands of years. There are other types of relationships that have existed for thousands and thousands of years which we currently disallow. It's far more likely that we'll see a push for (non-procreative) incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage before we see people pushing laws to allow marrying intelligent smartphone apps or Alpha-Centaurians or their own vat-grown clones.


You have a point, but culture blindness is a big thing. Yeah, same-sex relationships have been around awhile, but I'm not sure how many people in the '50's thought about gay marriage even as a possibility? I think that trans rights will be the next big cultural push, but ten years ago I couldn't have told you what that even meant. I don't know if it'll happen, but I think there's at least the possibility that another big issue will come up that's been an issue forever, but that we've always kind of overlooked.

Mikeski
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Mikeski » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:22 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:I think that trans rights will be the next big cultural push, but ten years ago I couldn't have told you what that even meant. I don't know if it'll happen, but I think there's at least the possibility that another big issue will come up that's been an issue forever, but that we've always kind of overlooked.

Once you have "gay marriage", you have "trans marriage" by definition, though. If you can marry either a man or a woman, it doesn't matter if your spouse's chromosomes/plumbing/identity all match up or not.

ebow
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Chair

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby ebow » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:26 pm UTC

vortighast wrote:... However, I do believe that a distinction between marriage and civil unions is the best option all around. I was never sure how this ides sat with people on the other side of the argument, but from reading the previous comments it seems to be supported by many.
...


I was all for this (civil unions from the gov't, marriage from religious groups) until some states started passing laws / amendments that prohibited the establishment of any kind of benefits-granting unions to same-sex couples. At that point it was clearly about discriminating and denying, not just "protecting" a particular notion of marriage.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Foelhe » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:26 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
Foelhe wrote:I think that trans rights will be the next big cultural push, but ten years ago I couldn't have told you what that even meant. I don't know if it'll happen, but I think there's at least the possibility that another big issue will come up that's been an issue forever, but that we've always kind of overlooked.

Once you have "gay marriage", you have "trans marriage" by definition, though. If you can marry either a man or a woman, it doesn't matter if your spouse's chromosomes/plumbing/identity all match up or not.


Marriage isn't the only issue though, for gay or trans folks. It's the most visible one right now, but there's still things like discriminatory housing/firing, adoption rights, and probably some other stuff I'm not that familiar with myself.

Seli
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:01 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Seli » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:31 pm UTC

vortighast wrote:I may as well interject.

As someone who believes marriage is a holy institution between a man and a woman established by God (for life I might add, I feel as strongly about divorce as I do homosexuality), I can't reconcile gay marriage with my beliefs. However, I do believe that a distinction between marriage and civil unions is the best option all around. I was never sure how this ides sat with people on the other side of the argument, but from reading the previous comments it seems to be supported by many.
...

That distinction of course already exists. There is the legally defined marriage, that bestows certain rights and obligations on the people involved and forces the rest of society to honour those. And there is a whole plethora of religious ceremonies that celebrate a couple, which while important to the people involved and their community carries no obligations to the rest of the world.
So why re-invent the wheel only because people are confusing the two?

MGitsfullofsheep
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:16 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby MGitsfullofsheep » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:34 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
mathmannix wrote:... but that most people today wouldn't even be able to think of.

Probably false. Interracial and homosexual relationships have existed for thousands and thousands of years. There are other types of relationships that have existed for thousands and thousands of years which we currently disallow. It's far more likely that we'll see a push for (non-procreative) incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage before we see people pushing laws to allow marrying intelligent smartphone apps or Alpha-Centaurians or their own vat-grown clones.


That seems plausible indeed. While we are at it, in between there's "marrying" any living entity, no restriction, with whatever you can imagine as a substitute of sexual activity.

mathmannix wrote:do we keep the "not required to testify against your spouse in court" rule when an entire drug-running gang or embezzling board-of-directors marries itself? (I'm already waiting for the first non-amorous homosexual marriage between criminals just for this purpose.)


Well, I think there's news for you.
"Alfredo Stranieri" and "Germain Gaiffe" are true criminals that legally married on 17 July 2013 in France shortly after law allowed it. Humorist Dieudonné (opponent of the law) and terrorist Carlos were witnesses. French Wikipedia also relates that with sourced links.
Actual motive may just be provocation, though. I don't know if french law has "not required to testify against your spouse in court".

MGitsfullofsheep
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:16 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby MGitsfullofsheep » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:37 pm UTC

Seli wrote:That distinction of course already exists. There is the legally defined marriage, that bestows certain rights and obligations on the people involved and forces the rest of society to honour those. And there is a whole plethora of religious ceremonies that celebrate a couple, which while important to the people involved and their community carries no obligations to the rest of the world.
So why re-invent the wheel only because people are confusing the two?


Well, that's the point: using different names for the two different things (civil union vs marriage) seems like a good way to avoid maintaining confusion in peoples' minds.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:41 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
Foelhe wrote:I think that trans rights will be the next big cultural push, but ten years ago I couldn't have told you what that even meant. I don't know if it'll happen, but I think there's at least the possibility that another big issue will come up that's been an issue forever, but that we've always kind of overlooked.

Once you have "gay marriage", you have "trans marriage" by definition, though. If you can marry either a man or a woman, it doesn't matter if your spouse's chromosomes/plumbing/identity all match up or not.
Yes, but you'll notice Foelhe didn't say "trans marriage" will be the next big cultural push, but that "trans rights" will be.

If you're only talking about which marriage issue will be the next big one, I could see polygamy popping back up on the radar now that increasing numbers of non-Mormons are vocally interested in pursuing committed poly relationships.

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:
Seli wrote:That distinction of course already exists. There is the legally defined marriage, that bestows certain rights and obligations on the people involved and forces the rest of society to honour those. And there is a whole plethora of religious ceremonies that celebrate a couple, which while important to the people involved and their community carries no obligations to the rest of the world.
So why re-invent the wheel only because people are confusing the two?

Well, that's the point: using different names for the two different things (civil union vs marriage) seems like a good way to avoid maintaining confusion in peoples' minds.
Who is actually confused? Most of the anti-gay marriage laws states have passed in recent years explicitly prohibit similar marriage-like relationships from having legal recognition. They're not confused, they're just bigoted.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Foelhe » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:44 pm UTC

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:
Seli wrote:That distinction of course already exists. There is the legally defined marriage, that bestows certain rights and obligations on the people involved and forces the rest of society to honour those. And there is a whole plethora of religious ceremonies that celebrate a couple, which while important to the people involved and their community carries no obligations to the rest of the world.
So why re-invent the wheel only because people are confusing the two?


Well, that's the point: using different names for the two different things (civil union vs marriage) seems like a good way to avoid maintaining confusion in peoples' minds.


Please God, don't dumb the law down so it can be understood by the lowest common denominator. That's a recipe for disaster.

Mikeski
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Mikeski » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:44 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:
Mikeski wrote:
Foelhe wrote:I think that trans rights will be the next big cultural push, but ten years ago I couldn't have told you what that even meant. I don't know if it'll happen, but I think there's at least the possibility that another big issue will come up that's been an issue forever, but that we've always kind of overlooked.

Once you have "gay marriage", you have "trans marriage" by definition, though. If you can marry either a man or a woman, it doesn't matter if your spouse's chromosomes/plumbing/identity all match up or not.

Marriage isn't the only issue though, for gay or trans folks. It's the most visible one right now, but there's still things like discriminatory housing/firing, adoption rights, and probably some other stuff I'm not that familiar with myself.

All of the previous discussion was about marriage, though, so you're answering a different "what's next?" than what was asked.

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:While we are at it, in between there's "marrying" any living entity, no restriction, with whatever you can imagine as a substitute of sexual activity.

Legally, though, marrying nonsentient things makes no sense. You don't need hospital visitation rights or can't-be-forced-to-testify-against rights for your pet capybara or favorite bonsai tree. You own those things, so you have all those rights already.

If you want to have "relations" with your pet capybara, you're not fighting marriage-type laws, you're fighting consent/statutory-rape-type laws.

Seli
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:01 am UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Seli » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:46 pm UTC

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:Well, that's the point: using different names for the two different things (civil union vs marriage) seems like a good way to avoid maintaining confusion in peoples' minds.

Good, which religious denomination gets marriage then? Because we would not want people to be confused between the different religiously blessed relationships.

A bit of a hyperbole of course, but it does show common sense dictates that legally recognized marriage seems to have the best papers to keep the term if one would choose to go that path. Especially since civil unions in many countries are being used as a lesser form of recognized relationship.

jpers36
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby jpers36 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:54 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Even if they see themselves as broken sinners, they certainly believe that the Bible is morally good and correct. And so pointing out morally reprehensible things in the Bible is still a pretty valid criticism of fundamentalist Christianity.


To be sure that's a better argument than what Jackpot777's been presenting, but there are still two issues.

First, I'm not sure anyone on this thread has outed themselves as members of "fundamentalist Christianity."

Second, "pointing out morally reprehensible things in the Bible" requires both a shared moral system and a shared interpretation of the Bible. On what would you base your claims -- modern culture? Supposed self-evident absolute truths?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:57 pm UTC

jpers36 wrote:Supposed self-evident absolute truths?
That forcing someone to live with their rapist is an abominable thing, and is indicative of a huge amount of related moral issues? Yeah... I feel comfortable with that one.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

MGitsfullofsheep
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:16 pm UTC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby MGitsfullofsheep » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:57 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Most of the anti-gay marriage laws states have passed in recent years explicitly prohibit similar marriage-like relationships from having legal recognition. They're not confused, they're just bigoted.


In some US states, maybe.
In France we have had a civil union named PACS for about 15 years. It has most effects of marriage, no condition on sex, easier to break.

vortighast wrote:I do believe that a distinction between marriage and civil unions is the best option all around. I was never sure how this ides sat with people on the other side of the argument, but from reading the previous comments it seems to be supported by many.


Tyndmyr wrote:It is my experience that a great many opponents to gay marriage have a similar viewpoint, with a significant subset thinking that seperating out the legal aspect from the marriage/social aspect is desirable. IE, you all get civil unions for legal matters, but the church or what not handles the marriage stuff.

The pro-gay marriage camp, however, tends to view such proposals as giving them something that's second rate. So...there's a gap in viewpoints here that's hard to bridge.


Thay may explain why the PACS was not aligned with marriage. Aligning the PACS with marriage would have provided full legal status.
Doing something different suggests the pro gay marriage camp wanted something else.
Some people say there was no actual strong demand, the french government just did that to divide and rule.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 97 guests