Essay talk:What's Wrong With Changing the Definition of Marriage?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Haha, I managed to log out during the time it took to write this. It's my work, by the way. --Kels 09:40, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

And good work it is. Just one little nitpick: Assuming that by droit de seigneur you mean the ius primae noctis, that never really existed in reality. Unless you're referring to it in a more general sense or as a literary topos - in that case, do carry on. :-) --AKjeldsen 10:50, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, guess I got carried away. I'll take that one out. Still, it does ramble a bit, doesn't it? --Kels 11:03, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

If the fundies are going to gay ban marriage, based on the Bible, then I think it's only fair to reinstate biblical polygamy as well! MiddleMan

Heck, why not ban marriage altogether? Paul said while it wasn't a sin, it was better to be single. --Kels 11:51, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Indeed. Before asking the question, "What's Wrong With Changing the Definition of Marriage?" shouldn't we ask - "Why marriage in the 21st Century?"?--Bob_M (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Why marriage at all? My question above had more to do with "If you're going to base your arguments on the Bible", when the Bible has a thing or two to say against the institution. Now I like the civil institution of marriage, for many of the practical reasons it was done in the first place, way back. However, if you wanted to do your own essay questioning the need for marriage in the first place, I'd be happy to read it. --Kels 14:25, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
I thought the purpose of marriage was so you could file your taxes jointly and get health insurance for your spouse. olliegrind 14:31, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Rights regarding children, hospital visitation, death benefits, right to plan funerals, and a host of others are all rolled into civil marriage are all part of the civil benefits of marriage. That, and general legal legitimacy. --Kels 14:35, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Personally, I'm partial to the approach taken in e.g. Belgium and the Netherlands, where they require separate civil and religious ceremonies. I.e. first you go to the town hall for the legally binding stuff, and then you can choose whether or not to do a religious wedding afterwards as well. Keeps things nice and uncomplicated. --AKjeldsen 15:03, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
I like it. That's pretty much the approach I recommend at the end of the essay. --Kels 15:20, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Hi Kels, I added the essay template to this and fear of death. Would you be offended if I did some minor copyediting on this? There are some leftover typos, and some wroding here or there is a bit lumpy - first draft on the fly-ism, I suspect. Or, of course, I could fix typos only and copy things that i think could flow better to here for youto ponder? humanbe in 21:10, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, go ahead. I don't mind, since I know you're doing it. --Kels 21:36, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
OK, done. Sorry if that seemed rude, implying you didn't write well, as you do. I did each section separately, so you can check the diffs more easily if you want. It was mostly a couple of typos, a comma here and there, and one or two removals of redundant words (probably leftovers from editing as you wrote). Anyway, I like the essay, it closely mirrors my own thoughts about marriage and those who feel the need to utilize the laws surrounding it. I also like the Jesus Dalek. humanbe in 23:22, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
No offense taken. Any writer worth a damn recognizes the need for good editing. I wrote the entire thing in one sitting, so I'm surprised that it's not a lot worse. --Kels 07:32, 30 May 2007 (CDT)