Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Still Waters

Church 'does not own marriage'

87 posts in this topic

The Church does not "own" marriage nor have the exclusive right to say who can marry, a government minister has said.

Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone said the government was entitled to introduce same-sex marriages as a "change for the better".

The Liberal Democrat was responding to comments by Lord Carey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, who said that "not even the Church" owns marriage.

But Lord Carey accused her of putting an "unwarranted slant" on his words.

Ms Featherstone's comments come as ministers prepare to launch a public consultation on legalising gay marriage next month.

Traditionalists want the law on marriage to remain unchanged.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused, are they thinking that marriages aren't valid unless it is sanctioned by the Church. If so then all those 'unions' made before the Church was created and from other cultures aren't legally binding. :blink:

I say if same sex couples want to get hitched, then let them. Its not going to bring on the apocalypse. :devil::innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The church does not own marriage nor does any religion. It`s religion getting into government that wants to make it so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Still Waters,I agree the church,any church cannot own the concept of "marriage",any more than Mcdonalds can own the concept of"breakfast". I know this is an overly simplistic comparison,I just cannot get over the feeling that in free and open societies some factions cannot and probably will not evolve ,and leave the rest of us to our own devices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they should stick to fighting pedophiles and sadists among their ranks instead of trying to harass others, besides I thought "marriage" was just a demonstration of love, isnt that what all religions want for humanity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the Church nor state own marriage...The people do I agree... But see the Church would be more into declining to marry people..where as the state wouldn't.. ( although you's expect that to be the other way around as Christianity leans on love all )...

But unfortunately a Church still owns the rights to discriminate towards who they will and will not marry...If it is their beliefs.. Like I said that is unfortunate But that's how it goes

I am glad I stuck to a non religious service because I owned my own marriage and I knew a civil marriage would not cause any real grief.... I think more people will lean towards that more these days anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny really. The church doesnt own the rights to the word marriage, but according to the etymology, history, and cultural context of the word, homosexual couples can't get "married" (in a church or elsewhere) The very word marriage, comes from an etymology or root meaning that involves a joining of a man and a woman. It really can only be rightly/correctly used in that context. It doesn't matter if the ceremony is religious , jumping over a broomstick, exchanging rings/vows, or what ever; by definition it is only a marriage if it involves a man and a woman.

I believe homodsexual people should have the same moral and legal rights to a contractual obligation as heterosexual people. In fact, I would like to see it a "requirement" in some instances, for legal reasons. But it can't be a marriage. Perhaps we should devise a more appropriate yet acceptable word for same- sex legal unions. I dont think the rights of any person, or group of people, include the right or ability to redefine the historical and contextual meaning of a word.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody owns marriage, except the two people involved. If a tradition robs a minority of equality, then it needs to be changed. And it looks like some churches and courts are willing to create a new model that meets everyone's needs and is more inclusive and celebratory. Societies and cultures are always changing, and sometimes tradition goes by the wayside; and often, it should. Congratulations to all of you out there who have successfully advocated for and fought for your rights in defiance of some of the biggest and most powerful institutions in the US.

Edited by Beany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny really. The church doesnt own the rights to the word marriage, but according to the etymology, history, and cultural context of the word, homosexual couples can't get "married" (in a church or elsewhere) The very word marriage, comes from an etymology or root meaning that involves a joining of a man and a woman. It really can only be rightly/correctly used in that context. It doesn't matter if the ceremony is religious , jumping over a broomstick, exchanging rings/vows, or what ever; by definition it is only a marriage if it involves a man and a woman.

I believe homodsexual people should have the same moral and legal rights to a contractual obligation as heterosexual people. In fact, I would like to see it a "requirement" in some instances, for legal reasons. But it can't be a marriage. Perhaps we should devise a more appropriate yet acceptable word for same- sex legal unions. I dont think the rights of any person, or group of people, include the right or ability to redefine the historical and contextual meaning of a word.

You make a very valid point about the historical context of the word"marriage". Thats something I had not considered before. I know that the majority of the opposition to homosexual unions are theologically/morality based,and since "civil union" sounds a tad impersonal,if its just a word{s} that legislators{i.e. Washington D.C.} are hung up on ,maybe we could use "wedlock" which derives from the old English word "wedd" meaning to pledge. Personally I think a couple can call a union whatever they want, but in the interests moving forward as a society, unbiased and intelligent conversation will set us free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very word marriage, comes from an etymology or root meaning that involves a joining of a man and a woman.

This should be interesting. Evidence, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to the etymology, history, and cultural context of the word, homosexual couples can't get "married" (in a church or elsewhere) The very word marriage, comes from an etymology or root meaning that involves a joining of a man and a woman. It really can only be rightly/correctly used in that context.

Language changes so much over time that I don't think you have a valid objection to the use of the word.

We don't use the word 'sinister' to mean lefthandedness anymore. Now it means something entirely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say if same sex couples want to get hitched, then let them. Its not going to bring on the apocalypse. :devil::innocent:

There are some think it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should be interesting. Evidence, please.

That should be very easy to find. I suspected this was the case from my days of high school latin, but to be sure I just checked wikipedia, which has a brief history of the etymology. You can also look it up in any good (old ) dictionary. Wikipedia also illustrates that, until about 1930, no one (from linguists to social historians) even thought of applying the term "marriage" to same sex couples. It was physically defined in all dictionaries, legal terminologies etc as a union between a man and a woman Of course dictionary definitios can change (think the word gay itself,) but the etymology or root derivation of a word remains constant. You can't change the evolutionary history of a word, except by evolving it further.

I also checked three reliable and reputable dictionaries at home which confirm not just the etymology but the practice in dictioanries of physically defining marriage as a cermony uniting a man and a woman

No. I do not have to provide evidence for something which is self evident, and long standing, and clearly defined/recorded. It is there. You can find it for yourself. I am not stupid enough to lie about something so basic and easily checked. On the other hand it is not my respoansibilty toproveide anyone else for evidence of ANY statement I make. That custom is one which has only become remotely possible with the internet. Prior to that you would have had to take my word for it, unless you had access to the same sources from which I had gathered the information, perhaps over 60 years, and stored in my memory or in note form. It is never incumbent on a person to prove a statement to another. Just to be responsible for its accuracy.

OH WTF its so easy i wil do it just this once .

The modern English word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 12501300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. (The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[11] The related English word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 C.E. and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

You see I already knew this (from my study of latin and also my interest in the etymology of english words.) I could have told you it, without looking it up. And if you didn't believe me, it should be YOUR job to prove me wrong.

It is about the state of becoming a mother, and or the joining together of a husband and a wife. This is also why, historically, the basic purpose of a marriage is to allow for the legal procreation of children. The very term, "marriage" and its related word "matrimony" relates linguistically, culturally, and historically, directly to motherhood.

So we have, via the etymology of the word, confirmation that "marriage" is intended as the union of a husband and a wife for the purpose of having children.

Ther is no reason why other relationships cant be as; binding, as legal, as loving, as permanent, and as protected by law, as the relationship of marriage, but they cant really BE a marriage.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see I already knew this (from my study of latin and also my interest in the etymology of english words.) I could have told you it, without looking it up. And if you didn't believe me, it should be YOUR job to prove me wrong.

Your Latin apparently didn't go as far as Marito, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Language changes so much over time that I don't think you have a valid objection to the use of the word.

We don't use the word 'sinister' to mean lefthandedness anymore. Now it means something entirely different.

As i said to Tiggs, definitions change but the root derivation and etymology of a word does not. It is basically wrong to use "marriage" as a term for same sex couples, because it relates in its very linguistics to the union of a man and a woman. It is like calling a dog a cat. You can do it, but its wrong and also confusing.

A dog cant actually be a cat and a same sex union cant actually be a marriage. As i said earlier I am a strong supporter of same sex unions. i would like to see them be legalised protected, and given the same rights and duties as heterosexual marriages. In fact I think they should be a requirement for both heterosexual and homosexual couples who want to have children, in order to provide both better legal protections for the children, and a( perhaps illusory) perception of permanency in a family.

A knolwedge of etymology is important. Actually sinister still means left handed, and left sided in heraldry, among other things. But its modern meaning of "evil" actually connects back to the belief that the left hand side was the "dark" side of a person So the modern concept of sinister is directly linked to lefthandedness If one doesnt know this one cant understand or communicate as effectively or accurately as if one does. I would guess that many modern people dont realise tha the modern word sinister comes entirely from left handedness.

to quote one source.

In the past, to be left-handed was considered touched by the Devil. As Wikipedia notes:

Historically, the left side, and subsequently left-handedness, was considered negative in many cultures. The Latin word sinistra originally meant "left" but took on meanings of "evil" or "unlucky" by the Classical Latin era, and this double meaning survives in European derivatives of Latin, and in the English word "sinister".

Meanings gradually developed from use of these terms in the ancient languages. In many modern European languages, including English, the word for the direction "right" also means "correct" or "proper", and also stands for authority and justice. In most Slavic languages the root prav is used in words carrying meanings of correctness or justice.

So, if you were left-handed or sinister, you were associated with evil. In time, sinister itself meant evil and threatening. EtymOnline said that sinister attained this meaning in the early 15th century. The OED supports this, writing that the first uses of sinister to mean malicious were:

1474 Rolls of Parl. VI. 110/1 Contynuyn in habundaunce of goodes and havour, to their sinister pleasure.

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/39092/how-did-sinister-the-latin-word-for-left-handed-get-its-current-meaning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Latin apparently didn't go as far as Marito, then?

marito is husband.

It is absolutely unmistakeable in the latin that this is a husband of a woman, becuse of the relationship of the other latin words to it. It really only reinforces the etymology I was talking about.

marītus m. (feminine marīta, neuter marītum); first/second declension

1.marital, matrimonial, conjugal

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maritus#Latin

Yes I know nero married at least a couple of men but he was a god and probably insane.lol Not a good example.

SOme people claim that, before christianity became the state religion in rome, men could be legally united. But I dont have any evidence that this was called by, or known as, the same term used for the marriage of heterosexual couples. Given the nature of the latin words used for marriage, husband wife tc., it seems unlikely.

There is, of course, a library full of work by modern apologists, who would argue otherwise. :devil:

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is absolutely unmistakeable in the latin that this is a husband of a woman, becuse of the relationship of the other latin words to it.

Why is it "absolutely unmistakenable", given that both homosexuality and gay marriage existed in ancient Rome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general anyone with any amount of true goodness even those that like to go all out to peg themselves at one with God and so on.. If any of them can show ignorance and in many cases hate and discrimination towards homosexuals and marriages... then these people are fake and pretenders .. Their acts of being at one with God is an act and nothing more... A true moral decent person who believes all are equal will believe that marriage is something that joins together for a life long commitment between two people who do in fact love and honour each other... It doesn't have to be opposite sex.. Only ignorance and dictations makes that arrogant claim

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it "absolutely unmistakenable", given that both homosexuality and gay marriage existed in ancient Rome?

It is disputable that gay "marriage" existed in ancient rome, just as it is disputable and for the same reasons, that a modern gay relationship is a "mariage". Of course gay unions and homosexuality existed in Rome. But, in general, the latin words, because of their context and relationship, referred to a formal union between a man and a woman. This was so before the church made same sex unions illegal. The term/word marriage, in it historical context, has only been applied to unions of a man and a woman. I am open to being proven wrong on that point and it is possible i am wrong but if I go by your standards/requirements, it is up to you to prove me wrong. :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i said to Tiggs, definitions change but the root derivation and etymology of a word does not. It is basically wrong to use "marriage" as a term for same sex couples, because it relates in its very linguistics to the union of a man and a woman.

One of the usages of the word 'marriage' is to describe a union of complimentary parts to form a whole - as in "the aerofoil is a marriage of form and function".

There is no indication or implication of any gender requirements in this usage, thus there should be no objection to the use of the word 'marriage' to describe a union between two men, or two women, who feel they compliment each other and wish to form "a whole", i.e. a life-partnership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is disputable that gay "marriage" existed in ancient rome, just as it is disputable

Only disputable to those that ignore facts of anceint history and liek to lay on their discriminating views ... Bellow is what these people you speak of that will dispute it will gladly ignore..

Classical Europe

See also: Homosexuality in ancient Rome and Homosexuality in ancient Greece....While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world... Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. It is believed that a same-sex union was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.

These gay unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire....A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. http://en.wikipedia....same-sex_unions

To sum up according to the text above, everyone was accepting in ancient Rome of same sex marriages UNTIL Christianity kicked in and decided to discriminate and even execute those that tried to ... Shame and yet Christianity is filled with accepting and love all morals lol

just as it is disputable and for the same reasons, that a modern gay relationship is a "mariage"

It can only be disputable amongst those that do not understand that marriage is about two people who love each other and are deeply loyal and committed in a relationship... Those who like to discriminate and say it is only for opposite sex are inserting their own ignorance which stems from Christianity as shown in the text above.. That is why they will dispute in my opinion. But it means nothing It goes to show you how badly Christianity has turned this from once accepting and non discriminations.. to condemn those that dare to show understanding and consideration.. Irony is one thing this world seems to strive upon

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing the logic is using past customs to define the legitimacy of current & future customs. Times change, people change, societies change. And etymology is what it is, it has little to do with how people behave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they should stick to fighting pedophiles and sadists among their ranks instead of trying to harass others, besides I thought "marriage" was just a demonstration of love, isnt that what all religions want for humanity?

If I were you I would call my lawmakers and have all of us horrible Catholics put in huge gas chambers. Rid the world of our scourge on humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the usages of the word 'marriage' is to describe a union of complimentary parts to form a whole - as in "the aerofoil is a marriage of form and function".

There is no indication or implication of any gender requirements in this usage, thus there should be no objection to the use of the word 'marriage' to describe a union between two men, or two women, who feel they compliment each other and wish to form "a whole", i.e. a life-partnership.

Thats a good point, but the two uses, IMO, arent transferable. Marriage as in a union of people infers ( no really makes explicit) the union of a male and a female, from the very words from which "marriage" originated. "Marriage" as in a union of two inert objects or philosophies can indeed be non gender specific, because they hold no gender them selves.

On the other hand, such use of the term marriage often arose, in technological terms, because of the complementary nature of two opposite parts, such as a nut and a screw. Again implying a male female joining. The word complementary actually refers to different parts coming together to make something whole or complete, from opposite/different pieces., Again only a male/ female union can pedantically/ classically do this, not just physically but holistically.

To complete a comlementary relationship requires two different parts, not two the same.

You have really reinforced the etymology of marriage as a union of two different parts, to make one holisitic and complete entity..

Otherwise you have a statement like, "An aerofoil is a marriage of form and form." (or function and function)

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To say marriage is only for the male and female to join.. is in fact laying an ownership on to marriage by dictating and laying the rule as to what it is and should be.. That ruling you make is showing clear discrimination towards others... What you are doing is laying hard on how it is has a rule and you peg it so strongly as if it is owned by something or someone.. It is not...

For marriage to be described as NOT OWNED BY ANYONE you cannot put your own personal rules as to who can and who cannot ever get married.. It has to be a freedom of choice for all... A marriage is a marriage if it is set around two people, regardless of the genders... who are committed

To sum up - Marriage is about love , honour and commitment between two people.... And it doesn't matter who or what those two people are..

It's a pity some religious cannot remove their own hate and discrimination..Ironically from a faith that claims to spread good morals ... I'll never believe that one..

CAPS and bold to lay emphasis..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.