News Is Polygamy Legally Permitted in Canada?

[CaptainQuasar]

Interestingly enough, Elton John "came out" in favor of the "nuclear option" today: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm

I agree. By calling it "marriage", it makes people think they are trying to hijack the institution.

He would only be advocating for what I've been calling the "nuclear option" if he thinks that marriage should not be a civil institution for anyone. Having marriage allowed for hetero people and homosexual people only permitted civil unions would be like segregation of the races. Even if hetero people were also allowed to get civil unions... I mean, white people could go into a black restaurant if they wanted to. But a black man going in and sitting down in the counter at a white diner had to expect that they're probably refuse to serve him, not to mention worse things.

The point of the nuclear option would be to completely remove marriage from the civil arena and leave it to the churches, guaranteeing equal treatment under the law by ensuring that the law is only endorsing things which any couple can get. And as I said above, I do agree that a triple or a quadruple, et cetera, probably ought to have the same right, unless someone can present a good argument why they shouldn't.

⚛​

 

[LowlyPion]

Just out of interest - does the bible say anything about leaving the toilet seat up?

It does if you are married to a woman.

Of course your question does point the way to a possible advantage of a gay marriage however.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is no need to get a piece of paper from the government to confirm that you love someone. If you want to hold a ceremony pledging your love for another person before your friends and family and whatever God you worship, there is nothing in current law preventing it.

§ 18.2-344
Fornication

Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.

http://www.sodomy.org/laws/virginia/fornication.html

This law was struck down only three years ago. So what you say is mostly, but still not entirely true. The fact is that until recently, it was illegal to have sex out of wedlock in many States.

The Virginia Supreme Court Strikes Down the State's Fornication Law,
Indicating that Other States' Antiquated Laws Will Fall if Challenged

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/grossman/20050125.html

Not only fornication, but also laws against oral and anal sex are still on the books.

 

[Cyrus]

Kenneth Oberman Commentary:



I think this sums up my overall view on the subject. It's not about what you believe, it's about live and let live- it's about doing unto others as you'd you have them do unto you. So much for love thy neighbor. That is one of greatest contradictions/hypocrisies of religion. 70 years ago it was Jews. 30 years ago it was blacks. The human condition never improves- it only seems to morph into different forms of intolerence. 30 years from now I'm guessing we'll still be going through this same song and dance about some segment of the people: the next target of organized religion and small-minded, fearful bigots. If nothing else, human beings are predictable.

Jesus that guys a bozo. I like him sometimes. But he's way too much of an emotional cry baby.

Three hundred fifty five days, four hours twelve point five five five five seconds before I mess my pants hearing myself talk on the news. This DASTARDLY DEED cannot go unpunished. Is there NO JUSTICE?

Oberman=(O'rlley)^-1

Vote....for LOVEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee... don't crush and defeat love. IT IS ...LOVE...that makes the world go round. I talk like William Shatner...but I am not cool like him...this is.....the end.

Please, enough Oberman.

 

[WarPhalange]

Arranged marriages are unnatural. My point was that humans, left to their own devices, would tend to make partnerships of a form that we now consider "marriage" just like other animals do. And arranged or not, the biological purpose is procreation.

Arranged marriages is how it's been for a long time, ever since tribes wanted to make peace with each other and traded daughters or whatever.

Or a merchant wanted to move higher up the ladder.

I really don't know where you are coming from with this "arranged marriages are unnatural" business. It's been going on since humans formed tribes.

Jesus that guys a bozo. I like him sometimes. But he's way too much of an emotional cry baby.

Three hundred fifty five days, four hours twelve point five five five five seconds before I mess my pants hearing myself talk on the news. This DASTARDLY DEED cannot go unpunished. Is there NO JUSTICE?

Oberman=(O'rlley)^-1

Vote....for LOVEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee... don't crush and defeat love. IT IS ...LOVE...that makes the world go round. I talk like William Shatner...but I am not cool like him...this is.....the end.

Please, enough Oberman.

Oh Irony, thy name is Cyrus.

 

[Cyrus]

Arranged marriages is how it's been for a long time, ever since tribes wanted to make peace with each other and traded daughters or whatever.

Or a merchant wanted to move higher up the ladder.

I really don't know where you are coming from with this "arranged marriages are unnatural" business. It's been going on since humans formed tribes.



Oh Irony, thy name is Cyrus.

Five days, fifteen minutes, twenty point three three three three three three three three three three three three three three FOUR seconds until I think of something witty to reply back. IT WILL BE EPIC.

 

[WarPhalange]

until I think of something witty to reply back.

I guess there's a first time for everything.

Seriously, the show is called "Countdown". That's the gimmick.

 

[Cyrus]

Arranged marriages is how it's been for a long time, ever since tribes wanted to make peace with each other and traded daughters or whatever.

Or a merchant wanted to move higher up the ladder.

I really don't know where you are coming from with this "arranged marriages are unnatural" business. It's been going on since humans formed tribes.



Oh Irony, thy name is Cyrus.

I guess there's a first time for everything.

Seriously, the show is called "Countdown". That's the gimmick.

He's good when he corrects people who are factually wrong. Other than that, he's a showboater just like Oreilly.

Oreilly likes to yell, Oberman likes to ramble on and on like its some sort of drama screening for a movie part. They should play the music to days of our lives when he wrambles on.

 

[Gokul43201]

I would say that the bond formed between any two higher level animals due to their biological predisposition to procreate is what we call "love" and marriage is just a human formalization of that bond.

So you believe homosexual beings can't "love" each other?

 

[WarPhalange]

He's good when he corrects people who are factually wrong. Other than that, he's a showboater just like Oreilly.

Oreilly likes to yell, Oberman likes to ramble on and on like its some sort of drama screening for a movie part. They should play the music to days of our lives when he wrambles on.

Skip to 1:40.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I would say that the bond formed between any two higher level animals due to their biological predisposition to procreate is what we call "love" and marriage is just a human formalization of that bond.

So you believe homosexual beings can't "love" each other?

Also, although we can't start discussing religion of course, it seems pertinent to note in passing that this principle would have interesting consequences for any monotheistic religion in which the god does not require the help of other beings to procreate and whether love would be possible from that god in that case. But this really must only be noted in passing, we can't debate the answer to that question and I'm expressing no opinion either way, all we can do is observe that such a question might be prompted by such a principle relative to such a religion.

⚛​

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The reasons for bigamy laws flows from the issues of property and responsibility for children and inheritance.

If you want to sort out the spaghetti of family law and probate issues that would attend any legalization of polygamous marriages feel free to volunteer and offer up some solutions. There are some screwball voters in California and Utah that might find that appealing.

What would the mess be? Divorce, probate, child custody, ect are all rather messy issues most often anyway. The standard decisions in cases without mitigating factors (wills / contest for custody / ect) would hardly have to change at all as far as I can tell.

 

[BobG]

The reasons for bigamy laws flows from the issues of property and responsibility for children and inheritance.

If you want to sort out the spaghetti of family law and probate issues that would attend any legalization of polygamous marriages feel free to volunteer and offer up some solutions. There are some screwball voters in California and Utah that might find that appealing.

What would the mess be? Divorce, probate, child custody, ect are all rather messy issues most often anyway. The standard decisions in cases without mitigating factors (wills / contest for custody / ect) would hardly have to change at all as far as I can tell.

Divorced men paying child support remarry. If they have kids with their second (or third or fourth) wife and divorce, the court has to sort out who gets how much child support. Of course, the catch is that subsequent wives already know the guy has a commitment to pay child support for kids from previous marriages, so she knows the potential impact to her own kids.

A woman who is the second wife in a polygamous marriage doesn't necessarily know the husband is going to have three more kids with his first wife, which makes it a little harder to determine whose kids have priority for child support.

When a married man with kids knocks up the local waittress and she sues for child support, things get a little messier. The waittress's success in getting child support unfairly penalizes the current wife and her children.

What kind of spaghetti of family law can handle the situation where the father-in-law is the biological parent of his daughter-in-law's kids? Or when grandma is knocked up with her son-in-law's sperm and her daughter's eggs? (Impregnating your mother-in-law)

As messy as family law is, people are messier.

 

[russ_watters]

So you believe homosexual beings can't "love" each other?

I said almost exactly the opposite of that in other posts, Gokul. I can't understand how you could misread what I said so badly.

 

[russ_watters]

The reasons for bigamy laws flows from the issues of property and responsibility for children and inheritance.

That's not true. Did you read the Wiki article on Reynolds v United States, I cited? It never mentions property rights or responsibility for children. It says:

The most important ruling of the case was over whether Reynolds could use a defense due to religious belief or duty. Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.

The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law on which United States law was based.

Although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, how long before someone argued that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion but could legislate against action.

In these economic times it is a mystery to me how it is they would be devoting resources to even stirring up the pot on the issue. There seems so much more to be done that would be more fruitful than trying to source such spitefulness.

You have it backwards: the reason that the outcome was such a shock is because only the opponents of Prop 8 (proponents of gay marriage) who devoted significant resources to the issue.

 

[russ_watters]

He would only be advocating for what I've been calling the "nuclear option" if he thinks that marriage should not be a civil institution for anyone. Having marriage allowed for hetero people and homosexual people only permitted civil unions would be like segregation of the races. Even if hetero people were also allowed to get civil unions... I mean, white people could go into a black restaurant if they wanted to. But a black man going in and sitting down in the counter at a white diner had to expect that they're probably refuse to serve him, not to mention worse things.

The point of the nuclear option would be to completely remove marriage from the civil arena and leave it to the churches, guaranteeing equal treatment under the law by ensuring that the law is only endorsing things which any couple can get. And as I said above, I do agree that a triple or a quadruple, et cetera, probably ought to have the same right, unless someone can present a good argument why they shouldn't.

⚛​

I'm not sure if that is true or not (his position), but I'd be fine with it either way. For legal puposes, I don't see any reason why there needs to be an institution of marriage. I know people who have long term commitments to partners and have no plans to get married because they don't believe in the institution (they are athiest and believe "marriage" to be a religious thing). I see no reason why the government shouldn't recognize their non-religious union.

[edit] Why don't we also explore how far we should take this: you've all heard of "common law mariage", right? Does it only apply to people of opposite sexes? Does it require love? Romantic or Philios? Why can't two people of the same or opposite sex, who decide for whatever personal reasons to live together for an extended period of time adopt kids together and/or get tax breaks?

 

[russ_watters]

This law was struck down only three years ago. So what you say is mostly, but still not entirely true. The fact is that until recently, it was illegal to have sex out of wedlock in many States...

Not only fornication, but also laws against oral and anal sex are still on the books.

I guess I don't see what your point is. I fully recognize that laws regarding sexuality are still archaic in many places and I fully recognize (as Olbert said) that our racial laws were archaic until relatively recently, but I don't see what that has to do with this issue. I think the attempt to connect them is a strawman.

 

[Evo]

Divorced men paying child support remarry.

Don't forget that women pay child support if a child lives with the husband, and women also have to pay maintenance to keep up their ex-husband's lifestyle if the woman makes more money.

 

[russ_watters]

Arranged marriages is how it's been for a long time, ever since tribes wanted to make peace with each other and traded daughters or whatever.

Or a merchant wanted to move higher up the ladder.

I really don't know where you are coming from with this "arranged marriages are unnatural" business. It's been going on since humans formed tribes.

You seem to know where I'm coming from with it, since you said it in your last sentence! Prior to tribalization (beginning of formal organizational structures), we were ruled more by our animalistic instincts. Arranged marriage is a bad thing because it goes against those instincts. It should be obvious why.

This is all off track, though: my point is that the reason "marriage" came to exist is it is a formalization of a biological bond that exists for procreation.

You guys know me as the forum pedant - I don't like changing definitions of words just because people feel like it. If gays want to fall in love and have a ceremony to annouce that love, go for it! But it isn't marriage. Heck, I may even be ok with calling it "gay marriage" because like "tofu burger" it puts a qualifier on the term for differentiation from the traditional meaning of it.

 

[Gokul43201]

You said:

I would say that the bond formed between any two higher level animals due to their biological predisposition to procreate is what we call "love" and marriage is just a human formalization of that bond.

I take that to mean: "love" is the bond formed between heterosexual organisms predisposed to procreate.

And that prompted my question...

So you believe homosexual beings can't "love" each other?

...to which you replied:

I said almost exactly the opposite of that in other posts, Gokul. I can't understand how you could misread what I said so badly.

I haven't read all the posts in this thread.

Are you saying I have misread the post of yours that I quoted above, or are you saying you have contradicted that post in other posts you made?

 

[kathrynag]

I am very dissapointed that there is a ban. I actually have 2 moms and firmly believe that if you love someone you should be granted the same rights as someone else and be able to marry that person regardelss of whether you're a woman marrying another woman or a woman marrying a man.

 

[Evo]

This is all off track, though: my point is that the reason "marriage" came to exist is it is a formalization of a biological bond that exists for procreation.

I believe marriage was formalized more for solidifying claims for wealth and possessions. That is historically the reason.

 

[WarPhalange]

You seem to know where I'm coming from with it, since you said it in your last sentence! Prior to tribalization (beginning of formal organizational structures), we were ruled more by our animalistic instincts. Arranged marriage is a bad thing because it goes against those instincts. It should be obvious why.

Uhhh... before tribalization? Even our ancestors and cousins were tribal. I don't now how far back you want to go, but there's no real telling how our ancestors and such lived, and before them you couldn't even have love as they didn't have the brain power.

I mean The Bible already starts with tribes, and I'm referring to the smaller camps, not some 5000 person city or whatever.

This is all off track, though: my point is that the reason "marriage" came to exist is it is a formalization of a biological bond that exists for procreation.

Why would you formalize it? What reason is there for that? Tribal cultures didn't care about court documents proclaiming your love for one another.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

my point is that the reason "marriage" came to exist is it is a formalization of a biological bond that exists for procreation.

Why do you make statements as if they are a fact when you can't possibly know?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I guess I don't see what your point is. I fully recognize that laws regarding sexuality are still archaic in many places and I fully recognize (as Olbert said) that our racial laws were archaic until relatively recently, but I don't see what that has to do with this issue. I think the attempt to connect them is a strawman.

A strawman for what? Why are you always so suspicious of motive? It was just an observation.

 

[JasonRox]

I can't believe russ said that.

I guess that irrationality leads to stubborness.

 

[Zantra]

So where do you stand on the polygamy issue?

I think it's ironic that the very institution that once promoted polygamy wants to "define marriage." It's akin to a black person rallying for slavery, which in turn brings up the irony of blacks voting in favor of a law that promotes discrimination.

The video is pretty much just an emotional response to something he doesn't try to understand (at least he admits it). It's evident in his tone of voice and the way he quivers when he talks. One quote in particular: How in the world does the passage of Prop 8 prevent people from living happily with their partner?!

For that matter, how can we deny those who want two wives the chance to live happily with their partners?

Well apparently this is very emotional issue, otherwise why would so many people have so much invested emotionally in a topic that does not even affect them? Moreover, my question to you is, Why does it bother you? How would gay marriage have affected your life negatively? And please don't throw any kids in my face, because that's just funny. I was half-expecting them to shoot an animal and say "gay marriage kills our pets". The fact that they actually resorted to such a transparent ploy illustrates the weakness of the position. Marriage is a word. it's a word that's given meaning by society, but it has no true impact outside of the significance we give it, and the manner in which we interpret it. Yet I see so many incensed over this word as it if it was a holy word. As if it deserves some sort of reverence or special honor. It means nothing. It's the act that brings meaning. Any straight moron can be hitched by Elvis at 3 in the morning, but they are not literally bound by it. there are no laws demanding it's permenance. No one goes to "jail" for breaking the "sacred" vows. The divorce rate is over 50%, and people talk of the sanctity of marriage as it has any permanence or meaning IMHO, what matters is STAYING with a person for the rest of your life. Marriage is making a promise that doesn't have to be kept. Keeping the promise is what marriage is REALLY about. Marriage isn't about religion, it's about people.

What bothers me personally, are people who hide behind their bible. Hate is hate, any which way you twist it. There's no logical argument in favor of hatred, and that's what this represents, without reservation. Any law which doesn't harm another people is a just law. You can arguem morals but homosexuality isn't going anywhere, so hiding it is really pointless. And it's ironic that you use polygamy to argue your point, because it illustrates mine.
Regardless of how you, personally, feel about what the definition of "marriage" should be, others disagree. Evolution, it would seem, has changed it's viewpoint on biological compatibility, and thus, you cannot stem the tide of changing popular opinion. It will only swing more to the left with each passing generation, and I personally applaude it. Dictating how another human being lives wrong, in any context- at least that's my feeling.

 

[Zantra]

Don't forget that women pay child support if a child lives with the husband, and women also have to pay maintenance to keep up their ex-husband's lifestyle if the woman makes more money.

True, except for two caveats:

1. The woman in the majority of cases makes less than the man- that is just the current social atmosphere.

2. The courts nearly always give preference to the mother in custody cases, because that is how the court is biased. That is simply the way things are, the vast majority of cases (exceptions like mom selling crack aside) But all things being equal, mom wins, always.

 

[Proton Soup]

Why do you make statements as if they are a fact when you can't possibly know?

marriage is more about formalizing paternity in our western-culture judeo-christian tradition. a man may mate with several women, but only one provides the legitimate heirs to his name and wealth. and to that extent, it was traditionally the wife's fidelity that must be beyond reproach.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

So out of curiosity I took a look into the roots of the word "marriage" which led me to this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=I0J1A6o4GuQC" which has all sorts of interesting info in it.

"Marriage" leads back to the Latin word maritatus which is usually translated as "husband", whereas the Latin word "matrimonium", one of the words for something like marriage, derives from mater, mother.

Most wives were said to be in manus of the husband, which meant something like "in the power of" legally (I'm not sure if that's going to literally mean "in hand" - anybody read Latin?) which was the same term used to describe the relationship of one who is a slave of another.

And I've gathered from several sources that it's thought that there was only one province in the Roman empire where polygamy was common, and guess where that was... Palestine! So the roots of Christianity are very much the polygamy of the Old Testament. Monogamy is actually a pagan gentile thing, would you believe? "In 212, all Jews became Roman citizens and, as such, theoretically subjected to severe penalties for polygamy." http://books.google.com/books?id=Ik...ected+to+severe+penalties+for+polygamy."&lr=" No wonder Muslims consider Christians to be infidels!

The more I learn about the history of sexuality in Western history the more pathological it seems. One of the major determinants of the negative view of sexuality was St. Augustine, the Roman bishop of Hippo Regius in North Africa in the 5th century.

Throughout the Confessions, the language Augustine uses to describe his sexual impulses is negative, reflecting images of disease, disorder, and corruption. Desire is mud (2.2, 3.1), a whirlpool (2.2), chains (2.2, 3.1) thorns (2.3), a seething cauldron (3.1), and an open sore that must be scratched (3.1). Desire for Augustine is almost a compulsion, an irrational impulse that he feels incapable of controlling without God’s help, a bondage that he is too weak to escape. Desire becomes the last obstacle between Augustine and a complete commitment to God, because he is certain he cannot live a celibate life.

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/St-Augustine-s-Confessions-Critical-Essays-Augustine-s-View-of-Sexuality.id-166,pageNum-76.html" ​

Another theologian of the time, Pelagius, argued with Augustine over this and basically said, "to hell with you, I'll have sex with my wife whenever I want." But for various reasons Augustine's work came to be valued more than that of Pelagius and so Augustine's opinions on sexuality were dominant in later scholarship and culture.

⚛​

 

[LowlyPion]

Here is a searchable database of the contributors to Prop 8.

http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

Plug in the state of Utah and look at the kind of money they spent to meddle with gays in California.

What kind of small minded people in this time of economic stress would be so committed to fund such mischief?

Did the Archangel Moroni put them up to it?

 

[LowlyPion]

Most wives were said to be in manus of the husband, which meant something like "in the power of" legally (I'm not sure if that's going to literally mean "in hand" - anybody read Latin?) which was the same term used to describe the relationship of one who is a slave of another.

Chattel.

Those were the good old days of Empire and Dominion for men.

Now that they got the vote ...

 

[Proton Soup]

Cap'n, i think some of that crazy sex thought in the church comes from some weird ideas about Mary. catholics, at least, like to think of her as always being chaste and will go out of their way to argue that Jesus' siblings mentioned in the Bible are not his actual blood relatives but cousins or something because Mary actually having relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus is just WRONG for some reason. i don't get it. but for some reason they can't conceive of her as a flesh and blood human or of sex as pure and God-ordained.

and there is also some teaching by Paul (formerly Saul) about those serving the church being better able to devote themselves to it if they don't have a spouse. but he makes it clear that this is not a requirement from God, just his personal suggestion. and also, Paul has some sort of "thorn in his flesh" and maybe that is what keeps him celibate. we are never told.

also in the new testament, officers in the church (deacons and elders) are restricted to having only one wife. perhaps this is because a man with more than one wife has little time to devote to making sure widows have their bread. one will keep you busy enough. but i don't think it actually says have two wives is bad, or frowned upon, it just excludes you from office. and maybe I'm interpreting the passage wrong, but nowadays "more than one wife" seems to be read as "not divorced and re-married". i like to think it could actually mean two at the same time.

i wouldn't be surprised if Roman rule is the source of monogamy. Christianity did have a hard time in the early days of Rome, but in the end it was a subversive force and soon became the national religion there. and quite a few traditions were absorbed, such as Christmas, that are not part of the original religion. and we still do this today, where the overall culture is absorbed into the religion. a modern example related to this topic might be thinking it is wrong for teenagers to get married.

now, going back to old testament, abraham had two sons, one with a woman that might be considered real chattel. and that woman's son was not considered a legitimate heir.

others did have multiple wives, like Jacob's Rachael and Leah. i can't remember exactly how that turned out except for lots of strife, so it's generally pointed to as an argument against polygamy. and i think David had more than one, but don't remember what happened there. but polygamy was well-established in old times, and, i think, probably at least tolerated in the beginning of the Christian era.

 

[Phrak]

The 9th circuit is busy finding a way to declare it unconstitutional, as we speak.

 

[LowlyPion]

The 9th circuit is busy finding a way to declare it unconstitutional, as we speak.

And so we should pray.

 

[CRGreathouse]

"Marriage" leads back to the Latin word maritatus which is usually translated as "husband", whereas the Latin word "matrimonium", one of the words for something like marriage, derives from mater, mother.

Most wives were said to be in manus of the husband, which meant something like "in the power of" legally (I'm not sure if that's going to literally mean "in hand" - anybody read Latin?) which was the same term used to describe the relationship of one who is a slave of another.

I have maritatus 'married', the past participle of maritatre 'to marry'. I don't know how that could be translated husband; as I recall, classical Latin had vir for both 'man' and 'husband'. French does have a similar form, though: mari 'husband'.

Your source is correct that wives are under the manus of the pater familias 'father of the family'/'head of household'/'patriarch'. But this says less about the wife than the husband, as the same power was applied to (say) adult children. All of the household was under the protection and authority of the pater familias.

Even if children married and moved out, they were still under the authority (sub manu, which is as you suggested 'under the hand') of the pater familias until his death.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

That book mentions vir as a word for "man" also. But the Online Etymological Dictionary agrees with the association of maritus to "marriage" and gives a Sanskrit cognate as well:

1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor").

In Googling around I found another word that may be related maryannu in an ancient language Hurro-Urartian, which I have never heard of before. Maryannu originally meant "charioteer" evidently and later came to refer to the men of the nobility of some ancient nation.

[EDIT] Oops, it looks like I spelled maritus wrong in that first post. Sorry, my familiarity with Latin is tangential.

⚛​

 

[CRGreathouse]

Cap'n, i think some of that crazy sex thought in the church comes from some weird ideas about Mary. catholics, at least, like to think of her as always being chaste and will go out of their way to argue that Jesus' siblings mentioned in the Bible are not his actual blood relatives but cousins or something because Mary actually having relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus is just WRONG for some reason. i don't get it. but for some reason they can't conceive of her as a flesh and blood human or of sex as pure and God-ordained.

I think the Catholic belief stems from this tradition in the Gospel of James (not a part of the Bible), which asserts that Mary was dedicated to the temple (and that Joseph was a much older widower). Google dragged this up for me:
"And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock..."

This would be a tradition, like the Nazarenes, that put strong restrictions on their members that would not apply to Jewish society at large. The claim that Mary remained a virgin would then be related to the claim that she stayed true to the life she had been promised to.

I am unaware of any scholarship regarding the existence of such a tradition, the historic content of the Gospel of James, or the like. But this is the historical reason behind the claim, not a belief in the badness of sex or the like. (That became popular about a thousand years later.) Captain Quasar is correct in his reading of Augustine, but that view was not in the majority for hundreds of years, and my personal understanding is that it was a reaction to Augustine's earlier days as a playboy.

 

[CRGreathouse]

That book mentions vir as a word for "man" also. But the Online Etymological Dictionary agrees with the association of maritus to "marriage" and gives a Sanskrit cognate as well:

I don't disagree with any of that. Maritus is a root of marriage, and it's not surprising that Sanskrit also has a reflex from their common root. I just didn't think that it was related to a Latin word for 'husband'.

In Googling around I found another word that may be related maryannu in an ancient language Hurro-Urartian, which I have never heard of before. Maryannu originally meant "charioteer" evidently and later came to refer to the men of the nobility of some ancient nation.

It's hard for me to believe that those are related. The Hurro-Urartian family isn't even Indo-European! Even if they were related, it would be only by an early borrowing from the Anatolian branch of Indo-European [edit: because the rest of the early IE languages were far from Turkey where the Hurro-Urartian languages were spoken]. And for a borrowing that old, I'd be surprised if the forms were that similar...

 

[Proton Soup]

I am unaware of any scholarship regarding the existence of such a tradition, the historic content of the Gospel of James, or the like. But this is the historical reason behind the claim, not a belief in the badness of sex or the like. (That became popular about a thousand years later.)

maybe badness isn't exactly it, but I'm given the impression by a catholic friend that Mary is considered to have been born without sin (because God/Jesus and sin cannot exist together) and never did sin. and though they deny the deity of Mary, this kind of perfection places her in the same class of deity as Jesus himself, and they constantly refer to her as the Mother of God. and deities don't have sex, they are chaste, like... Jesus and Mary. while this doesn't explicitly claim that sex is bad, it does give the impression that chastity gets one closer to deity, while sex pushes you away from deity.

 

[mgb_phys]

You can't help feeling that christianity would have been better if Paul had got laid more.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

It's hard for me to believe that those are related. The Hurro-Urartian family isn't even Indo-European!

Certainly, I forgot to mention that - it would have to be a loan word instead of a cognate. But I came across a couple of different scholars suggesting the relationship (though not stating it with iron-clad certainty.)

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Captain Quasar is correct in his reading of Augustine, but that view was not in the majority for hundreds of years, and my personal understanding is that it was a reaction to Augustine's earlier days as a playboy.

Regardless of the cause of it (although some scholars are skeptical that Augustine was really ever that much of a playboy by Roman standards) the reason why the negative view of sexuality came to loom large in Christian culture and theology was the same reason other doctrines of his - just war, original sin, the Church as a supernatural entity with existence beyond the physical, Mariological assertions that Mary was free from temporal sin, etc. - were adopted whole-heartedly by many people who probably didn't even know they originated with him; because he became the theologian of highest repute. It's some of his personal neuroses written large upon history.

Many of his doctrines, such as views on the anointed authority of the Church, were there in large part because he was personally involved in the conflict with and extermination of the Donatist Christian sect in North Africa. And unfortunately this also set a precedent and tradition for how the Roman Church dealt with groups of Christians who wished to be independent.

⚛​

 

[CRGreathouse]

maybe badness isn't exactly it, but I'm given the impression by a catholic friend that Mary is considered to have been born without sin (because God/Jesus and sin cannot exist together) and never did sin. and though they deny the deity of Mary, this kind of perfection places her in the same class of deity as Jesus himself, and they constantly refer to her as the Mother of God. and deities don't have sex, they are chaste, like... Jesus and Mary. while this doesn't explicitly claim that sex is bad, it does give the impression that chastity gets one closer to deity, while sex pushes you away from deity.

Ah. That's a different issue.

Catholics have an unusual notion of 'original sin', that is, inborn sin. (I'm not entirely familiar with the nuances of the doctrine, but I trust they're not required.) Mary is claimed to have been born without this original sin, and to have not sinned herself. This ostensibly made her an appropriate receptacle for Jesus.

That Mary was sinless is an important point in Christian/Catholic theology and has been taught since before the Schism. That Mary was a virgin is less important, and in fact was not official Catholic teaching until relatively recently. (Sorry, no reference handy, but past the middle ages as I recall.)

Similarly, the Eastern Orthodox churches views Mary's sinlessness as official doctrine, while does not attach the same level of belief to her status as a perpetual virgin. (This belief is still held in those churches.)

 

[LowlyPion]

What I don't understand is why the Mormons would undertake to push such an initiative?

Are they feeling so politically impotent after Romney's rejection that they just had to try and mug California to impose their narrow faith based view on Californians?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Many of his doctrines, such as views on the anointed authority of the Church, were there in large part because he was personally involved in the conflict with and extermination of the Donatist Christian sect in North Africa. And unfortunately this also set a precedent and tradition for how the Roman Church dealt with groups of Christians who wished to be independent.

Hmm... I don't know that I can agree with that. I think Christianity has fragmented more freely and more frequently than most religions. First the Oriental Orthodoxy, then the Eastern Orthodox; not much bad blood, and no more conflict that would be usual between nations. The various Protestant schisms did lead to conflict, but most of that also seemed like ordinary nationalist struggles reinterpreted in a religious conflict. And today's near-total cessation of violence (the last gasps of the IRA notwithstanding) brings the total years of conflict to about 500. Compare that to the 1350+ years of bloodshed between the Sunni and the Shi'a! And there have been serious movements toward reconciliation (of varying degrees) between different Christian churches in the last 30 years.

 

[CRGreathouse]

What I don't understand is why the Mormons would undertake to push such an initiative?

The LDS Church states its views here:
http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

I'm not going to slog through it myself, but if someone would like to leave a summary that might be useful.

 

[LowlyPion]

The LDS Church states its views here:
http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

I'm not going to slog through it myself, but if someone would like to leave a summary that might be useful.

Thanks for the link. I guess I should have looked there before asking.

And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.

I grapple with understanding this still. The thinking is rather convoluted insofar as there is a presumption that restricting the rights of others can be justified by as yet no demonstrable diminishment of their own rights.

It's tantamount to suggesting they don't like it and they aren't going to let others do it, as though it's their business in the first place.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Hmm... I don't know that I can agree with that. I think Christianity has fragmented more freely and more frequently than most religions. First the Oriental Orthodoxy, then the Eastern Orthodox; not much bad blood, and no more conflict that would be usual between nations. The various Protestant schisms did lead to conflict, but most of that also seemed like ordinary nationalist struggles reinterpreted in a religious conflict. And today's near-total cessation of violence (the last gasps of the IRA notwithstanding) brings the total years of conflict to about 500. Compare that to the 1350+ years of bloodshed between the Sunni and the Shi'a! And there have been serious movements toward reconciliation (of varying degrees) between different Christian churches in the last 30 years.

There's definitely a lot of sectarian conflict in all religions and much of it is really terrible. But before Augustine's time heretical sects simply got exiled beyond the bounds of the Empire, they were put under an interdiction order like the Nestorians. Afterwards, however, there were many cases of heretical groups being eradicated (or the attempt made) by the dominant Christian culture like with the Bogomils, Albigensians, Waldensians, Montanists, et cetera.

⚛​

 

[Proton Soup]

Thanks for the link. I guess I should have looked there before asking.


I grapple with understanding this still. The thinking is rather convoluted insofar as there is a presumption that restricting the rights of others can be justified by as yet no demonstrable diminishment of their own rights.

It's tantamount to suggesting they don't like it and they aren't going to let others do it, as though it's their business in the first place.

read the section on "Tolerance,..."