RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Ed, It must be that the Talmudic discussion with Keith is getting to you. Lawry was funning and he did it well. Enjoy, enjoy! Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed WeickSent: Friday, November 28, 2003 3:34 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage I find this a little strange. Don't all lives end in death? And in the case of marriages, surely they end when one spouse dies unless they've already ended in divorce. Or am I missing something? Ed - Original Message - From: Lawrence DeBivort To: Harry Pollard ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 8:58 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage I did some research -- the numbers are available if you are willing to really look for them -- and the news is really a lot worse. The simple truth is that most lives end in death, I calculate about 98%, plus or minus 4%. This is based on careful sampling, and, though it may seem counter-intuitive, seems to be true of all cultures. Also, I found out that Eskimos have many words for death, if you include euphemisms. There is also some research that suggests that if enough people die, then more will die -- a sort of 100th Monkey effect. Cheers, Lawry --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003
RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Ed, That's as good as Lawry's! Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 8:10 AMTo: Ray Evans Harrell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Sarcasm Ed. I thought Lawry was funny. REH My problem is that I get entirely to serious at times, and perhaps with good reason - I'm in my early 70s and when anyone suggests the possibility of avoiding death, I sit up and take notice. Ed --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003
Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
I find this a little strange. Don't all lives end in death? And in the case of marriages, surely they end when one spouse dies unless they've already ended in divorce. Or am I missing something? Ed - Original Message - From: Lawrence DeBivort To: Harry Pollard ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 8:58 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage I did some research -- the numbers are available if you are willing to really look for them -- and the news is really a lot worse. The simple truth is that most lives end in death, I calculate about 98%, plus or minus 4%. This is based on careful sampling, and, though it may seem counter-intuitive, seems to be true of all cultures. Also, I found out that Eskimos have many words for death, if you include euphemisms. There is also some research that suggests that if enough people die, then more will die -- a sort of 100th Monkey effect. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Harry PollardSent: Thu, November 27, 2003 3:14 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Bill, Good! What I was reacting to - as you know - is the deliberate attack on marriage as a sometime thing. Marriages and divorces in a year are supposed to show that marriage is on the rocks. You seem to adopt my attitude. When in doubt, count. Since you came in to the discussion so well, I think I am going to broadcast the appalling statistic that half of all marriages end in death! That should stop people from getting married. Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:45 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Harry, you are correct if you consider ever divorced, viz: Young Adults Were Postponing Marriage _ The proportion of divorced persons increased markedly at the national level in recent decades, but the increases were not the same for all areas of the country. In fact, by 1990, sharp regional and State differences were noted in the prevalence of divorce (see map). _ One measure often used to highlight the differences in the level of divorce is the divorce ratio, defined as the number of divorced persons per 1,000 married persons living with their spouse. _ The West had the highest divorce ratio of any region in 1990, with 182 divorced persons per 1,000 persons in intact marriages. In contrast, the Northeast had the lowest ratio (130 per 1,000). The ratios for the South and Midwest were 156 and 151, respectively. _ Not surprisingly, Nevada led the States in 1990 with the highest divorce ratio (268 per 1,000), more than double the ratio for North Dakota (101), with the lowest. If you divide all divorces by all marriages, you get a higher figure. I'm looking for that. Bill ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003
Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Sarcasm Ed. I thought Lawry was
funny.
REH
- Original Message -
From:
Ed Weick
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Harry Pollard ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 6:34
AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's
impossible problem of same-sex marriage
I find this a little strange. Don't all lives
end in death? And in the case of marriages, surely they end when one
spouse dies unless they've already ended in divorce. Or am I missing
something?
Ed
- Original Message -
From:
Lawrence
DeBivort
To: Harry Pollard ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 8:58
PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's
impossible problem of same-sex marriage
I
did some research -- the numbers are available if you are willing to really
look for them -- and the news is really a lot worse. The simple truth is
that most lives end in death, I calculate about 98%, plus or minus 4%. This
is based on careful sampling, and, though it may seem counter-intuitive,
seems to be true of all cultures. Also, I found out that Eskimos have
many words for death, if you include euphemisms.
There is also some research that suggests that if enough people die,
then more will die -- a sort of 100th Monkey effect.
Cheers,
Lawry
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Harry
PollardSent: Thu, November 27, 2003 3:14 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE:
[Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex
marriage
Bill,
Good!
What I was reacting to - as you know - is the
deliberate attack on marriage as a sometime thing. Marriages and divorces
in a year are supposed to show that marriage is on the
rocks.
You seem to adopt my attitude. When in doubt,
count.
Since you came in to the discussion so well, I
think I am going to broadcast the appalling statistic that half of all
marriages end in death!
That should stop people from getting
married.
Harry
Henry George School of Social
Science of Los
Angeles Box
655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818
352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:45
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex
marriage
Harry, you are correct if you consider ever divorced, viz:
Young Adults Were Postponing
Marriage
_
The proportion of
divorced persons increased markedly at
the national
level in recent decades, but the increases
were
not the same for
all areas of the country. In fact, by 1990,
sharp regional
and State differences were noted in the
prevalence of
divorce (see map).
_
One measure often
used to highlight the differences in the
level of divorce
is the divorce ratio, defined as the number
of divorced
persons per 1,000 married persons living with
their
spouse.
_
The West had the
highest divorce ratio of any region
in 1990, with 182
divorced persons per 1,000 persons
in intact
marriages. In contrast, the Northeast had the
lowest ratio (130
per 1,000). The ratios for the South and
Midwest were 156
and 151, respectively.
_
Not surprisingly,
Nevada led the States in 1990 with the
highest divorce
ratio (268 per 1,000), more than double
the ratio for North Dakota (101), with the
lowest.
If you divide all divorces by all marriages, you get a higher
figure. I'm looking for that.
Bill
---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked
by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.541 /
Virus Database: 335 - Release Date:
11/14/2003
Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Sarcasm Ed. I thought Lawry was funny. REH My problem is that I get entirely to serious at times, and perhaps with good reason - I'm in my early 70s and when anyone suggests the possibility of avoiding death, I sit up and take notice. Ed - Original Message - From: Ray Evans Harrell To: Ed Weick ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Harry Pollard ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Sarcasm Ed. I thought Lawry was funny. REH - Original Message - From: Ed Weick To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Harry Pollard ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 6:34 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage I find this a little strange. Don't all lives end in death? And in the case of marriages, surely they end when one spouse dies unless they've already ended in divorce. Or am I missing something? Ed - Original Message - From: Lawrence DeBivort To: Harry Pollard ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 8:58 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage I did some research -- the numbers are available if you are willing to really look for them -- and the news is really a lot worse. The simple truth is that most lives end in death, I calculate about 98%, plus or minus 4%. This is based on careful sampling, and, though it may seem counter-intuitive, seems to be true of all cultures. Also, I found out that Eskimos have many words for death, if you include euphemisms. There is also some research that suggests that if enough people die, then more will die -- a sort of 100th Monkey effect. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Harry PollardSent: Thu, November 27, 2003 3:14 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Bill, Good! What I was reacting to - as you know - is the deliberate attack on marriage as a sometime thing. Marriages and divorces in a year are supposed to show that marriage is on the rocks. You seem to adopt my attitude. When in doubt, count. Since you came in to the discussion so well, I think I am going to broadcast the appalling statistic that half of all marriages end in death! That should stop people from getting married. Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:45 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Harry, you are correct if you consider ever divorced, viz: Young Adults Were Postponing Marriage _ The proportion of divorced persons increased markedly at the national level in recent decades, but the increases were not the same for all areas of the country. In fact, by 1990, sharp regional and State differences were noted in the prevalence of divorce (see map). _ One measure often used to highlight the differences in the level of divorce is the divorce ratio, defined as the number of divorced persons per 1,000 married persons living with their spouse. _ The West had the highest divorce ratio of any region in 1990, with 182 divorced persons per 1,000 persons in intact marriages. In contrast, the Northeast had the lowest ratio (130 per 1,000). The ratios for the South and Midwest were 156 and 151, respectively. _ Not surprisingly, Nevada led the States in 1990 with the highest divorce ratio (268 per 1,000), more than double the ratio
RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
And I understand that breathing in and out seems to correllate very strongly with eventual death. It seems there is a perfect fit between breathing in and out and eventual death. We have the best minds working on this very interesting research problem. arthur -Original Message-From: Lawrence DeBivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 8:59 PMTo: Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage I did some research -- the numbers are available if you are willing to really look for them -- and the news is really a lot worse. The simple truth is that most lives end in death, I calculate about 98%, plus or minus 4%. This is based on careful sampling, and, though it may seem counter-intuitive, seems to be true of all cultures. Also, I found out that Eskimos have many words for death, if you include euphemisms. There is also some research that suggests that if enough people die, then more will die -- a sort of 100th Monkey effect. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Harry PollardSent: Thu, November 27, 2003 3:14 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Bill, Good! What I was reacting to - as you know - is the deliberate attack on marriage as a sometime thing. Marriages and divorces in a year are supposed to show that marriage is on the rocks. You seem to adopt my attitude. When in doubt, count. Since you came in to the discussion so well, I think I am going to broadcast the appalling statistic that half of all marriages end in death! That should stop people from getting married. Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:45 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Harry, you are correct if you consider ever divorced, viz: Young Adults Were Postponing Marriage _ The proportion of divorced persons increased markedly at the national level in recent decades, but the increases were not the same for all areas of the country. In fact, by 1990, sharp regional and State differences were noted in the prevalence of divorce (see map). _ One measure often used to highlight the differences in the level of divorce is the divorce ratio, defined as the number of divorced persons per 1,000 married persons living with their spouse. _ The West had the highest divorce ratio of any region in 1990, with 182 divorced persons per 1,000 persons in intact marriages. In contrast, the Northeast had the lowest ratio (130 per 1,000). The ratios for the South and Midwest were 156 and 151, respectively. _ Not surprisingly, Nevada led the States in 1990 with the highest divorce ratio (268 per 1,000), more than double the ratio for North Dakota (101), with the lowest. If you divide all divorces by all marriages, you get a higher figure. I'm looking for that. Bill ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003
RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Good
point, Arthur.
What I
have never understood, though, is this thing of breathing inAND out. I
mean, wouldn't that just cancel everything out? Like, why bother? Well,
OK, some argue thatwe do need oxygen. I can accept that, at least in
theory. But then why not just breathe in? You know, do half the work, and
therefore live twice as long. Seems to me that that would make lots of
sense.
Cheers,
Lawry
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Fri, November 28, 2003 11:06
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE:
[Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex
marriage
And
I understand that breathing in and out seems to correllate very strongly with
eventual death. It seems there is a perfect fit between breathing in and
out and eventual death. We have the best minds working on this very
interesting research problem.
arthur
-Original Message-From: Lawrence DeBivort
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003
8:59 PMTo: Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's
impossible problem of same-sex marriage
I
did some research -- the numbers are available if you are willing to really
look for them -- and the news is really a lot worse. The simple truth is
that most lives end in death, I calculate about 98%, plus or minus 4%. This
is based on careful sampling, and, though it may seem counter-intuitive,
seems to be true of all cultures. Also, I found out that Eskimos have
many words for death, if you include euphemisms.
There is also some research that suggests that if enough people die,
then more will die -- a sort of 100th Monkey effect.
Cheers,
Lawry
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Harry
PollardSent: Thu, November 27, 2003 3:14 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE:
[Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex
marriage
Bill,
Good!
What I was reacting to - as you know - is the
deliberate attack on marriage as a sometime thing. Marriages and divorces
in a year are supposed to show that marriage is on the
rocks.
You seem to adopt my attitude. When in doubt,
count.
Since you came in to the discussion so well, I
think I am going to broadcast the appalling statistic that half of all
marriages end in death!
That should stop people from getting
married.
Harry
Henry George School of Social
Science of Los
Angeles Box
655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818
352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:45
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex
marriage
Harry, you are correct if you consider ever divorced, viz:
Young Adults Were Postponing
Marriage
_
The proportion of
divorced persons increased markedly at
the national
level in recent decades, but the increases
were
not the same for
all areas of the country. In fact, by 1990,
sharp regional
and State differences were noted in the
prevalence of
divorce (see map).
_
One measure often
used to highlight the differences in the
level of divorce
is the divorce ratio, defined as the number
of divorced
persons per 1,000 married persons living with
their
spouse.
_
The West had the
highest divorce ratio of any region
in 1990, with 182
divorced persons per 1,000 persons
in intact
marriages. In contrast, the Northeast had the
lowest ratio (130
per 1,000). The ratios for the South and
Midwest were 156
and 151, respectively.
_
Not surprisingly,
Nevada led the States in 1990 with the
highest divorce
ratio (268 per 1,000), more than double
the ratio for North Dakota (101), with the
lowest.
If you divide all divorces by all marriages, you get a higher
figure. I'm looking for that.
Bill
---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked
by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.541 /
Virus Database: 335 - Release Date:
11/14/2003
RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Arthur Cordell wrote: And I understand that breathing in and out seems to correllate very strongly with eventual death. It seems there is a perfect fit between breathing in and out and eventual death. You forgot the control group. Chris SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword igve. ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Lawrence DeBivort wrote: But then why not just breathe in? You know, do half the work, and therefore live twice as long. Some economists have tried that (you know, least exertion and all that). I guess that's why they sound like inflated frogs. Chris SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword igve. ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Lawrence DeBivort wrote: Good point, Arthur. What I have never understood, though, is this thing of breathing in AND out. I mean, wouldn't that just cancel everything out? Like, why bother? Well, OK, some argue that we do need oxygen. I can accept that, at least in theory. But then why not just breathe in? You know, do half the work, and therefore live twice as long. Seems to me that that would make lots of sense. [snip] Alas for your lament, lungs are not like gills which, I believe in my ignorance of the Naturwissenschaften (hard sciences), *is* a one way flow-thru process. But my point here is something different: some argue that we do need oxygen. I would propose that all instances of the grammatical construction whoever: self or other(s) needs whatever are really obfuscations of the semantic structure normally specified by: I want whatever. Another instance from the above-cited class of rhetorical ploys is: whoever: self or other(s) should do whatever. Nobody *needs* oxygen -- unless they *want* to live, i.e., the desire to live logically entails acting to procure oxygen. But we know that persons sometimes choose not to live and to forego oxygen in pursuit of their desires, which in such cases often aim to save from dying other persons whose life they wish to preserve. Ultimately, all human relations are grounded in either one or the other or some admixture of coercion and uncoerced cooperation. The ethical realm, it seems to me, is often used to try to trick persons into freely choosing to do something to which, if they realized how the wool was being pulled over their eyes, might say No, thank you. instead -- presuming it was not an offer they could not refuse \brad mccormick -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) ![%THINK;[SGML+APL]] Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Visit my website == http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Lawry, At 11:33 28/11/03 -0500, you wrote: Good point, Arthur. What I have never understood, though, is this thing of breathing in AND out. I mean, wouldn't that just cancel everything out? Like, why bother? Well, OK, some argue that we do need oxygen. I can accept that, at least in theory. But then why not just breathe in? You know, do half the work, and therefore live twice as long. Seems to me that that would make lots of sense. But that's exactly what happens anyway! Our diaphragm muscles do the work of breathing out -- breathing in happens of its own accord. (Nature abhors a vacuum or some such.) My problem these days is that I'm a magnificent breather-out, but my lungs don't want to breath in too much. (My vacuity is lessening these days instead of increasing.) Keith Cheers, Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri, November 28, 2003 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage And I understand that breathing in and out seems to correllate very strongly with eventual death. It seems there is a perfect fit between breathing in and out and eventual death. We have the best minds working on this very interesting research problem. arthur -Original Message- From: Lawrence DeBivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 8:59 PM To: Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage I did some research -- the numbers are available if you are willing to really look for them -- and the news is really a lot worse. The simple truth is that most lives end in death, I calculate about 98%, plus or minus 4%. This is based on careful sampling, and, though it may seem counter-intuitive, seems to be true of all cultures. Also, I found out that Eskimos have many words for death, if you include euphemisms. There is also some research that suggests that if enough people die, then more will die -- a sort of 100th Monkey effect. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Thu, November 27, 2003 3:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Bill, Good! What I was reacting to - as you know - is the deliberate attack on marriage as a sometime thing. Marriages and divorces in a year are supposed to show that marriage is on the rocks. You seem to adopt my attitude. When in doubt, count. Since you came in to the discussion so well, I think I am going to broadcast the appalling statistic that half of all marriages end in death! That should stop people from getting married. Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net/http://haledward.home.comcast.net -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Harry, you are correct if you consider ever divorced, viz: Young Adults Were Postponing Marriage _ The proportion of divorced persons increased markedly at the national level in recent decades, but the increases were not the same for all areas of the country. In fact, by 1990, sharp regional and State differences were noted in the prevalence of divorce (see map). _ One measure often used to highlight the differences in the level of divorce is the divorce ratio, defined as the number of divorced persons per 1,000 married persons living with their spouse. _ The West had the highest divorce ratio of any region in 1990, with 182 divorced persons per 1,000 persons in intact marriages. In contrast, the Northeast had the lowest ratio (130 per 1,000). The ratios for the South and Midwest were 156 and 151, respectively. _ Not surprisingly, Nevada led the States in 1990 with the highest divorce ratio (268 per 1,000), more than double the ratio for North Dakota (101), with the lowest. If you divide all divorces by all marriages, you get a higher figure. I'm looking for that. Bill --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003 Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 311636; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Maybe that is why, like so many others, they just end up croaking. Lawrence DeBivort wrote: But then why not just breathe in? You know, do half the work, and therefore live twice as long. Some economists have tried that (you know, least exertion and all that). I guess that's why they sound like inflated frogs. Chris ~~ ~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword igve. ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Sorry Keith but its the reverse. The diaphragm descends inflating the lungs while the gravity of the earth forces us to deflate.The process of exhalation is the normal result of presure on both visceral sac and lungs. It also does other things like digestion and messaging the organs. Good system. When you sing you just control the rate of exhalation but you can't prevent it. REH - Original Message - From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 2:37 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Lawry, At 11:33 28/11/03 -0500, you wrote: Good point, Arthur. What I have never understood, though, is this thing of breathing in AND out. I mean, wouldn't that just cancel everything out? Like, why bother? Well, OK, some argue that we do need oxygen. I can accept that, at least in theory. But then why not just breathe in? You know, do half the work, and therefore live twice as long. Seems to me that that would make lots of sense. But that's exactly what happens anyway! Our diaphragm muscles do the work of breathing out -- breathing in happens of its own accord. (Nature abhors a vacuum or some such.) My problem these days is that I'm a magnificent breather-out, but my lungs don't want to breath in too much. (My vacuity is lessening these days instead of increasing.) Keith Cheers, Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri, November 28, 2003 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage And I understand that breathing in and out seems to correllate very strongly with eventual death. It seems there is a perfect fit between breathing in and out and eventual death. We have the best minds working on this very interesting research problem. arthur -Original Message- From: Lawrence DeBivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 8:59 PM To: Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage I did some research -- the numbers are available if you are willing to really look for them -- and the news is really a lot worse. The simple truth is that most lives end in death, I calculate about 98%, plus or minus 4%. This is based on careful sampling, and, though it may seem counter-intuitive, seems to be true of all cultures. Also, I found out that Eskimos have many words for death, if you include euphemisms. There is also some research that suggests that if enough people die, then more will die -- a sort of 100th Monkey effect. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Thu, November 27, 2003 3:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Bill, Good! What I was reacting to - as you know - is the deliberate attack on marriage as a sometime thing. Marriages and divorces in a year are supposed to show that marriage is on the rocks. You seem to adopt my attitude. When in doubt, count. Since you came in to the discussion so well, I think I am going to broadcast the appalling statistic that half of all marriages end in death! That should stop people from getting married. Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net/http://haledward.home.comcast.net -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Harry, you are correct if you consider ever divorced, viz: Young Adults Were Postponing Marriage _ The proportion of divorced persons increased markedly at the national level in recent decades, but the increases were not the same for all areas of the country. In fact, by 1990, sharp regional and State differences were noted in the prevalence of divorce (see map). _ One measure often used to highlight the differences in the level of divorce is the divorce ratio, defined as the number of divorced persons per 1,000 married persons living with their spouse. _ The West had the highest divorce ratio of any region in 1990, with 182 divorced persons per 1,000 persons in intact marriages. In contrast, the Northeast had the lowest ratio (130 per 1,000). The ratios for the South and Midwest were 156 and 151, respectively
RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Bill, Good! What I was reacting to - as you know - is the deliberate attack on marriage as a sometime thing. Marriages and divorces in a year are supposed to show that marriage is on the rocks. You seem to adopt my attitude. When in doubt, count. Since you came in to the discussion so well, I think I am going to broadcast the appalling statistic that half of all marriages end in death! That should stop people from getting married. Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:45 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Harry, you are correct if you consider ever divorced, viz: Young Adults Were Postponing Marriage _ The proportion of divorced persons increased markedly at the national level in recent decades, but the increases were not the same for all areas of the country. In fact, by 1990, sharp regional and State differences were noted in the prevalence of divorce (see map). _ One measure often used to highlight the differences in the level of divorce is the divorce ratio, defined as the number of divorced persons per 1,000 married persons living with their spouse. _ The West had the highest divorce ratio of any region in 1990, with 182 divorced persons per 1,000 persons in intact marriages. In contrast, the Northeast had the lowest ratio (130 per 1,000). The ratios for the South and Midwest were 156 and 151, respectively. _ Not surprisingly, Nevada led the States in 1990 with the highest divorce ratio (268 per 1,000), more than double the ratio for North Dakota (101), with the lowest. If you divide all divorces by all marriages, you get a higher figure. I'm looking for that. Bill --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003
RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
I did
some research -- the numbers are available if you are willing to really look for
them -- and the news is really a lot worse. The simple truth is that most lives
end in death, I calculate about 98%, plus or minus 4%. This is based on careful
sampling, and, though it may seem counter-intuitive, seems to be true of all
cultures. Also, I found out that Eskimos have many words for death, if you
include euphemisms.
There
is also some research that suggests that if enough people die, then more will
die -- a sort of 100th Monkey effect.
Cheers,
Lawry
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Harry
PollardSent: Thu, November 27, 2003 3:14 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE:
[Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex
marriage
Bill,
Good!
What I was reacting to - as you know - is the
deliberate attack on marriage as a sometime thing. Marriages and divorces in a
year are supposed to show that marriage is on the rocks.
You seem to adopt my attitude. When in doubt,
count.
Since you came in to the discussion so well, I think
I am going to broadcast the appalling statistic that half of all marriages end
in death!
That should stop people from getting
married.
Harry
Henry George School of Social
Science of Los
Angeles Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:45
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex
marriage
Harry, you are correct if you consider ever divorced, viz:
Young Adults Were Postponing
Marriage
_
The proportion of
divorced persons increased markedly at
the national level in
recent decades, but the increases were
not the same for all
areas of the country. In fact, by 1990,
sharp regional and
State differences were noted in the
prevalence of divorce
(see map).
_
One measure often
used to highlight the differences in the
level of divorce is
the divorce ratio, defined as the number
of divorced persons
per 1,000 married persons living with
their
spouse.
_
The West had the
highest divorce ratio of any region
in 1990, with 182
divorced persons per 1,000 persons
in intact marriages.
In contrast, the Northeast had the
lowest ratio (130 per
1,000). The ratios for the South and
Midwest were 156 and
151, respectively.
_
Not surprisingly,
Nevada led the States in 1990 with the
highest divorce ratio
(268 per 1,000), more than double
the ratio for North Dakota (101), with the
lowest.
If you divide all divorces by all marriages, you get a higher figure.
I'm looking for that.
Bill
---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by
AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.541 / Virus
Database: 335 - Release Date:
11/14/2003
RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Bill,
I'm simply saying the "half of marriages end in
divorce" based on (say) 100,000 are wed and 50,000 are divorced
iswrong.
That's all. It's another statistic with the credibility
of the GNP, or import/export figures - in other words, no credibility at
all.
Harry
Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga
CA 91042 Tel: 818
352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 6:38
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Harry, you are defining prevalence of divorce but most are more interested
in incidence of divorce which would be the 50% in your definition. The fact that
someone may get divorced three times out of three and someone never gets
divorced would give a divorce rate of 75% but again, only half of the two people
divorced.
Bill
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:13:40 -0800 "Harry Pollard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Ray,
Just a point about something that is endlessly
repeated.
The 'half of all marriages ending in divorce' isn't
so.
I've forgotten the real figures but that doesn't
matter. I'll just example some.
Say their are 40 million marriages. Also, let's say
that this year there are 100,000 marriages and 50,000 divorces. This leads to
the idea that half the marriages end in divorce. But, of course,it's
50,000 divorces out of40 million.
And at the end of the year, the marriage total has
increased by 50,000.
However, I don't expect that this will stop the
continual unhappiness over 'half of all marriages end in
divorce'.
Oh, well.
Harry
Henry George School of Social
Science of Los
Angeles Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Evans
HarrellSent: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:24 PMTo: Keith
Hudson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's
impossible problem of same-sex marriage
In Keith we had the UK version of conservative
thought about marriage while here is the American version.
Although I disagree with Keith's math analogy. (You could
make the case that any group that is not in the majority is somehow unnatural
using his theory.) I do agree more with Keith's worldliness than
theromance of Brooks. Anyway here is the
article.
REH
November 22, 2003OP-ED
COLUMNIST
The Power of MarriageBy DAVID
BROOKS
nybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing
spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and
delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish
sensations.
But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond.
It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to each other and thereby
takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin.
Few of us work as hard at the vocation of marriage as we should. But
marriage makes us better than we deserve to be. Even in the chores of daily
life, married couples find themselves, over the years, coming closer together,
fusing into one flesh. Married people who remain committed to each other find
that they reorganize and deepen each other's lives. They may eventually come
to the point when they can say to each other: "Love you? I am you."
Today marriage is in crisis. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce.
Worse, in some circles, marriage is not even expected. Men and women shack up
for a while, produce children and then float off to shack up with someone
else.
Marriage is in crisis because marriage, which relies on a culture of
fidelity, is now asked to survive in a culture of contingency. Today,
individual choice is held up as the highest value: choice of lifestyles,
choice of identities, choice of cellphone rate plans. Freedom is a wonderful
thing, but the culture of contingency means that the marriage bond, which is
supposed to be a sacred vow till death do us part, is now more likely to be
seen as an easily canceled contract.
Men are more likely to want to trade up, when a younger trophy wife comes
along. Men and women are quicker to opt out of marriages, even marriages that
are not fatally flawed, when their "needs" don't seem to be met at that
moment.
Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States
has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital
fidelit
Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Harry, you are correct if you consider ever divorced, viz: Young Adults Were Postponing Marriage _ The proportion of divorced persons increased markedly at the national level in recent decades, but the increases were not the same for all areas of the country. In fact, by 1990, sharp regional and State differences were noted in the prevalence of divorce (see map). _ One measure often used to highlight the differences in the level of divorce is the divorce ratio, defined as the number of divorced persons per 1,000 married persons living with their spouse. _ The West had the highest divorce ratio of any region in 1990, with 182 divorced persons per 1,000 persons in intact marriages. In contrast, the Northeast had the lowest ratio (130 per 1,000). The ratios for the South and Midwest were 156 and 151, respectively. _ Not surprisingly, Nevada led the States in 1990 with the highest divorce ratio (268 per 1,000), more than double the ratio for North Dakota (101), with the lowest. If you divide all divorces by all marriages, you get a higher figure. I'm looking for that. Bill
RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Ray, Just a point about something that is endlessly repeated. The 'half of all marriages ending in divorce' isn't so. I've forgotten the real figures but that doesn't matter. I'll just example some. Say their are 40 million marriages. Also, let's say that this year there are 100,000 marriages and 50,000 divorces. This leads to the idea that half the marriages end in divorce. But, of course,it's 50,000 divorces out of40 million. And at the end of the year, the marriage total has increased by 50,000. However, I don't expect that this will stop the continual unhappiness over 'half of all marriages end in divorce'. Oh, well. Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Evans HarrellSent: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:24 PMTo: Keith Hudson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage In Keith we had the UK version of conservative thought about marriage while here is the American version. Although I disagree with Keith's math analogy. (You could make the case that any group that is not in the majority is somehow unnatural using his theory.) I do agree more with Keith's worldliness than theromance of Brooks. Anyway here is the article. REH November 22, 2003OP-ED COLUMNIST The Power of MarriageBy DAVID BROOKS nybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations. But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond. It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to each other and thereby takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin. Few of us work as hard at the vocation of marriage as we should. But marriage makes us better than we deserve to be. Even in the chores of daily life, married couples find themselves, over the years, coming closer together, fusing into one flesh. Married people who remain committed to each other find that they reorganize and deepen each other's lives. They may eventually come to the point when they can say to each other: "Love you? I am you." Today marriage is in crisis. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. Worse, in some circles, marriage is not even expected. Men and women shack up for a while, produce children and then float off to shack up with someone else. Marriage is in crisis because marriage, which relies on a culture of fidelity, is now asked to survive in a culture of contingency. Today, individual choice is held up as the highest value: choice of lifestyles, choice of identities, choice of cellphone rate plans. Freedom is a wonderful thing, but the culture of contingency means that the marriage bond, which is supposed to be a sacred vow till death do us part, is now more likely to be seen as an easily canceled contract. Men are more likely to want to trade up, when a younger trophy wife comes along. Men and women are quicker to opt out of marriages, even marriages that are not fatally flawed, when their "needs" don't seem to be met at that moment. Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a "partner," a word that reeks of contingency. You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work. Well, if women really domesticated men, heterosexual marriage wouldn't be in crisis. In truth, it's moral commitment, renewed every day through faithfulness, that "domesticates" all people. Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We're moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: "Where you
Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Harry, you are defining prevalence of divorce but most are more interested
in incidence of divorce which would be the 50% in your definition. The fact that
someone may get divorced three times out of three and someone never gets
divorced would give a divorce rate of 75% but again, only half of the two people
divorced.
Bill
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:13:40 -0800 "Harry Pollard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Ray,
Just a point about something that is endlessly
repeated.
The 'half of all marriages ending in divorce' isn't
so.
I've forgotten the real figures but that doesn't
matter. I'll just example some.
Say their are 40 million marriages. Also, let's say
that this year there are 100,000 marriages and 50,000 divorces. This leads to
the idea that half the marriages end in divorce. But, of course,it's
50,000 divorces out of40 million.
And at the end of the year, the marriage total has
increased by 50,000.
However, I don't expect that this will stop the
continual unhappiness over 'half of all marriages end in
divorce'.
Oh, well.
Harry
Henry George School of Social
Science of Los
Angeles Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Evans
HarrellSent: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:24 PMTo: Keith
Hudson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's
impossible problem of same-sex marriage
In Keith we had the UK version of conservative
thought about marriage while here is the American version.
Although I disagree with Keith's math analogy. (You could
make the case that any group that is not in the majority is somehow unnatural
using his theory.) I do agree more with Keith's worldliness than
theromance of Brooks. Anyway here is the
article.
REH
November 22, 2003OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Power of MarriageBy DAVID
BROOKS
nybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing
spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and
delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish
sensations.
But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond.
It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to each other and thereby
takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin.
Few of us work as hard at the vocation of marriage as we should. But
marriage makes us better than we deserve to be. Even in the chores of daily
life, married couples find themselves, over the years, coming closer together,
fusing into one flesh. Married people who remain committed to each other find
that they reorganize and deepen each other's lives. They may eventually come
to the point when they can say to each other: "Love you? I am you."
Today marriage is in crisis. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce.
Worse, in some circles, marriage is not even expected. Men and women shack up
for a while, produce children and then float off to shack up with someone
else.
Marriage is in crisis because marriage, which relies on a culture of
fidelity, is now asked to survive in a culture of contingency. Today,
individual choice is held up as the highest value: choice of lifestyles,
choice of identities, choice of cellphone rate plans. Freedom is a wonderful
thing, but the culture of contingency means that the marriage bond, which is
supposed to be a sacred vow till death do us part, is now more likely to be
seen as an easily canceled contract.
Men are more likely to want to trade up, when a younger trophy wife comes
along. Men and women are quicker to opt out of marriages, even marriages that
are not fatally flawed, when their "needs" don't seem to be met at that
moment.
Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States
has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital
fidelity except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and
forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or
lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you
meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a
"partner," a word that reeks of contingency.
You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives
would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the
path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays
must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all
marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women
RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
REH wrote: In Keith we had the UK version of conservative thought about marriage while here is the American version. Although I disagree with Keith's math analogy. (You could make the case that any group that is not in the majority is somehow unnatural using his theory.) I do agree more with Keith's worldliness than theromance of Brooks. Anyway here is the article. Brooks: The Power of Marriage @ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/opinion/22BROO.html I commend Brooks for his brave attempt to make conservatives consider their logic, actually follow through on their principles if promoting the sanctity of marriage the institution, but agree that it is a bit romanticized. Maybe those of us who have been divorced, for whatever reasons, have other perceptions from our experiences. Idealists defending a principle sometimes make it too difficult to practice in reality, and this may become more self-evident soon. This caught my eye fishing in cyberspace last night, trolling for more evidence of a coming religious cultural war (yes, its there) and before I read this morning that Bush had offended his political base by allowing that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Apparently, his base got a tad upset about it, but they are willing to forgive and forget perhaps because there is too much at stake when youve become a successful business venture and powerhouse to quibble on theological differences, eh? - KWC The author below is editor in chief of Beliefnet, the leading multifaith spirituality and religion Web site. Links are live. A Common Missed Conception Why religious people are against gay marriage. By Steven Waldman @ slate.com, posted Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2003, at 1:12 PM PT It's hard to overstate just how upset religious conservatives are about gay marriage. Gary Bauer's e-mail newsletter about the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling declared, Culture Wars Go Nuclear. Brian Fahling of the American Family Association said it was on an order of magnitude that is beyond the capacity of words. The Court has tampered with society's DNA, and the consequent mutation will reap unimaginable consequences for Massachusetts and our nation. A new poll from the Pew Forum on Religion Public Life found, not surprisingly, that opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality is highest among the most religious. Poignantly, homosexuality would seem to be the one topic that unites the leaders of the world's faithsan issue over which Franklin Graham and Malaysia's Mahathir Mohamed could break bread. Even the Dalai Lama views it as sexual misconduct. (But don't mention this to the liberal Hollywood Buddhist set.) Why exactly are religious folks opposed to gay marriage? The most fashionable argument against it is that it undermines the institution of marriage (and therefore family and therefore society), but I can't help but think this is a poll-tested idea that doesn't really get at the true feelings of the advocates; in the Pew poll, few people opposing the notion of gay marriage offered that up as the main reason. Most said, instead, that gay marriage and homosexuality were inherently wrong or violated their religious beliefs. The world's sacred texts are silent on the question of gay marriage, as it was not really an issue when they were written. However, those same texts do have strong opinions on homosexuality itself. Though there are differences in the views of different faiths, conservative Protestants, the Catholic Church, Mormons, traditional Jews, and Muslims share two fundamental antigay arguments. The first is that homosexuality is wrong because it involves sex that doesn't create life. In the case of Judaism, a key Bible passage is the story of Onan, who sleeps with his dead brother's wife but, to avoid giving his brother offspring, doesn't ejaculate inside her. Instead, he spilt the seed on the ground. God slew him, which some might view as a sign of disapproval. The Catholic catechism decries homosexual acts because they close the sexual act to the gift of life. Early American antisodomy laws discouraged all forms of non-procreative sex (including, incidentally, heterosexual oral and anal sex). Islam shares a similar view. One Islamic hadith explains that Allah will not look at the man who commits sodomy with a man or a woman. But if non-procreative sex is the issue, society started down the slippery slope not with the recent Supreme Court ruling but with production of the pillor, really, even earlier, when birth control became common. We've been into the non-procreative sex thing for some time now. Even most religious conservatives don't have the heart to go after this. If sex without the possibility of creating life is wrong, then religious leaders would have to go back to warring against masturbation. And what about sex among the infertile? Or sex among people over 70? Only the Catholic Church has maintained logical consistency, gamely reasserting its opposition to
Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
In Keith we had the UK version of conservative thought about marriage while here is the American version. Although I disagree with Keith's math analogy. (You could make the case that any group that is not in the majority is somehow unnatural using his theory.) I do agree more with Keith's worldliness than theromance of Brooks. Anyway here is the article. REH November 22, 2003OP-ED COLUMNIST The Power of MarriageBy DAVID BROOKS nybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations. But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond. It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to each other and thereby takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin. Few of us work as hard at the vocation of marriage as we should. But marriage makes us better than we deserve to be. Even in the chores of daily life, married couples find themselves, over the years, coming closer together, fusing into one flesh. Married people who remain committed to each other find that they reorganize and deepen each other's lives. They may eventually come to the point when they can say to each other: "Love you? I am you." Today marriage is in crisis. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. Worse, in some circles, marriage is not even expected. Men and women shack up for a while, produce children and then float off to shack up with someone else. Marriage is in crisis because marriage, which relies on a culture of fidelity, is now asked to survive in a culture of contingency. Today, individual choice is held up as the highest value: choice of lifestyles, choice of identities, choice of cellphone rate plans. Freedom is a wonderful thing, but the culture of contingency means that the marriage bond, which is supposed to be a sacred vow till death do us part, is now more likely to be seen as an easily canceled contract. Men are more likely to want to trade up, when a younger trophy wife comes along. Men and women are quicker to opt out of marriages, even marriages that are not fatally flawed, when their "needs" don't seem to be met at that moment. Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a "partner," a word that reeks of contingency. You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work. Well, if women really domesticated men, heterosexual marriage wouldn't be in crisis. In truth, it's moral commitment, renewed every day through faithfulness, that "domesticates" all people. Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We're moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried." The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity. When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote. Marriage is not voting. It's going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination. - Original Message - From: Keith Hudson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [Fu
RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Great posting. Most things seem to be ending in parody. This seems to include marriage. arthur -Original Message-From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:00 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriageIn addition to the impossible problem of Iraq, Bush now faces another impossible problem -- this time not of his own making. Same-sex marriage is now legal in England and in most of western Europe (I think) but now it looks as though the courts are going to have to push this through in America in the interests of the individual versus the state -- in this case a state which is currently headed by a man who avers that he is a fundamentalist Christian.Most of the problem -- in fact, all of the problem -- is due to the fact that the whole notion of marriage has been obscured and complicated by the intrusion of both the church and the state into private affairs.What is marriage? It is nothing more and nothing less than a publicly-witnessed business contract. I am not well-versed enough to go back in history to the beginnings of marriage thousands of years ago (of quite different sorts in different cultures) but we can clearly see the practice of western marriage in its essentials in medieval England when it was a matter of ensuring that the intended wife would have full claims to the worldly goods of the putative husband if he died -- "with all my goods I thee endow" and so forth. (And vice versa. In Tudor England, women controlled more wealth than men.)It was witnessed in church and recorded by the minister of the church because the latter was one of the few in those days who could write, and thus be able, if necessary, to communicate with any other churches in the following years if a dispute ever arose as to the validity of the marriage. In turbulent times when kings, princes and local barons could come and go overnight, the medieval Church was the one universal constant from horizon to horizon throughout Europe. Many different cultural variants of the Christian business ceremony occurred in other parts of the world with different dominant religions, and each would have clear provisions concerning the destination of any worldly goods if the marriage broke up or one of the participants died.The medieval marriage ceremony was but a grander version of what frequently goes on even now in southern Italy and parts of Russia where a business contract is best witnessed by the Mafia (for a suitable commission!) because the state cannot be relied upon to enforce the contract in case of dispute. The Mafia can -- and does -- enforce the contract in the case of either party defaulting. The medieval Church also had the ultimate sanction of excommunication and the threat of the flames of hell if a marriage partner divorced his wife or tried to dispossess her when he died. And, of course, that was a very real fear in those days.I used to know a couple called Billy and Flo who had a cottage next to me in the hamlet I lived in when I was was first married. They were in their 80s and got on in just the way that you'd expect. I would often chat with Billy, a retired farm labourer, over the garden fence as he pottered about in his greenhouse at the end of his long garden to which he used to escape as frequently as possible. If Flo called him from the kitchen for a meal, Bill would mutter to me : "Silly old cow". Sometimes, if I bumped into Flo, she would be looking for Billy: "Where's Billy? I've got a job for him to do in the house but I can't find him!"As I say, it was a normal sort of marriage. Except it wasn't a marriage in the normal way. One day I saw them getting off the bus from town at the end of the country lane leading where we lived. She was wearing a beautiful costume and Billy was wearing a suit! They had carnations in their buttonholes. "What's all this?" I said. "We've just got married," they replied. They had got married because they would then be entitled to some sort of extra state benefit to which they were not qualified before. However, in the eyes of the world (that is, in the hamlet of about 30 people in which we lived) they had already been validly married for over half a century. Billy and Flo had been living in a common law marriage, of course. For centuries, common law marriages were far more common than church marriages for ordinary people without much by way of worldly goods when they set up home together. In an everyday sense they were quite as "valid" as church marriages. The only difference between a common law marriage and a church marriage was that in the case of dispute or death there was no authority to insist on the appropriate allocation of any wealth that had accumulated between the partners. It
Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Many of us feel that government intervention in our affairs is excessive, but governments do have to do a few things. For example, the government of Canada has to pay out superannuation to its employees. Here it would seem to be trying to be asaccommodating as possible. For example, when one partner in a relationship dies, who is entitled to a portion of his or her superannuation is defined as follows: "A survivor allowance is a lifetime pension payable on the death of a plan member to the spouse, the common-law partner or same-sex partner of the member."And in the case of the Canada Pension Plan, which is available to everyone who pays into it, the relevant government web site says: "The Canada Pension Plan survivor's pension is paid to the person who, at the time of death, is the legal spouse or common-law partner of the deceased contributor (see definition of "spouse" and "common-law partner"). If you are a separated legal spouse and there is no cohabiting common-law partner, you may qualify for this benefit. If your deceased same-sex common-law partner contributed to the Canada Pension Plan, you could be eligible for survivor's benefits if the contributor died on or after January 1, 1998." So, at least in Canada, the government seems to want to be inclusive. It does not seem to matter who or what the survivor's relationship to the diseased is, as long as a relationship can be demonstrated. Ed - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:36 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Great posting. Most things seem to be ending in parody. This seems to include marriage. arthur -Original Message-From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:00 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriageIn addition to the impossible problem of Iraq, Bush now faces another impossible problem -- this time not of his own making. Same-sex marriage is now legal in England and in most of western Europe (I think) but now it looks as though the courts are going to have to push this through in America in the interests of the individual versus the state -- in this case a state which is currently headed by a man who avers that he is a fundamentalist Christian.Most of the problem -- in fact, all of the problem -- is due to the fact that the whole notion of marriage has been obscured and complicated by the intrusion of both the church and the state into private affairs.What is marriage? It is nothing more and nothing less than a publicly-witnessed business contract. I am not well-versed enough to go back in history to the beginnings of marriage thousands of years ago (of quite different sorts in different cultures) but we can clearly see the practice of western marriage in its essentials in medieval England when it was a matter of ensuring that the intended wife would have full claims to the worldly goods of the putative husband if he died -- "with all my goods I thee endow" and so forth. (And vice versa. In Tudor England, women controlled more wealth than men.)It was witnessed in church and recorded by the minister of the church because the latter was one of the few in those days who could write, and thus be able, if necessary, to communicate with any other churches in the following years if a dispute ever arose as to the validity of the marriage. In turbulent times when kings, princes and local barons could come and go overnight, the medieval Church was the one universal constant from horizon to horizon throughout Europe. Many different cultural variants of the Christian business ceremony occurred in other parts of the world with different dominant religions, and each would have clear provisions concerning the destination of any worldly goods if the marriage broke up or one of the participants died.The medieval marriage ceremony was but a grander version of what frequently goes on even now in southern Italy and parts of Russia where a business contract is best witnessed by the Mafia (for a suitable commission!) because the state cannot be relied upon to enforce the contract in case of dispute. The Mafia can -- and does -- enforce the contract in the case of either party defaulting. The medieval Church also had the ultimate sanction of excommunication and the threat of the flames of hell if a marriage partner divorced his wife or tried to dispossess her when he died. And, of course, that was a very real fear in those days.I used to know a couple called Billy and Flo who had a
Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Keith, I heard the argument this morning that this was actually a plus for Bush since his position is well known and Democratic candidates risk losing support no matter what position they take. Bill On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:36:15 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Great posting. Most things seem to be ending in parody. This seems to include marriage. arthur -Original Message-From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:00 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriageIn addition to the impossible problem of Iraq, Bush now faces another impossible problem -- this time not of his own making. Same-sex marriage is now legal in England and in most of western Europe (I think) but now it looks as though the courts are going to have to push this through in America in the interests of the individual versus the state -- in this case a state which is currently headed by a man who avers that he is a fundamentalist Christian.Most of the problem -- in fact, all of the problem -- is due to the fact that the whole notion of marriage has been obscured and complicated by the intrusion of both the church and the state into private affairs.What is marriage? It is nothing more and nothing less than a publicly-witnessed business contract. I am not well-versed enough to go back in history to the beginnings of marriage thousands of years ago (of quite different sorts in different cultures) but we can clearly see the practice of western marriage in its essentials in medieval England when it was a matter of ensuring that the intended wife would have full claims to the worldly goods of the putative husband if he died -- "with all my goods I thee endow" and so forth. (And vice versa. In Tudor England, women controlled more wealth than men.)It was witnessed in church and recorded by the minister of the church because the latter was one of the few in those days who could write, and thus be able, if necessary, to communicate with any other churches in the following years if a dispute ever arose as to the validity of the marriage. In turbulent times when kings, princes and local barons could come and go overnight, the medieval Church was the one universal constant from horizon to horizon throughout Europe. Many different cultural variants of the Christian business ceremony occurred in other parts of the world with different dominant religions, and each would have clear provisions concerning the destination of any worldly goods if the marriage broke up or one of the participants died.The medieval marriage ceremony was but a grander version of what frequently goes on even now in southern Italy and parts of Russia where a business contract is best witnessed by the Mafia (for a suitable commission!) because the state cannot be relied upon to enforce the contract in case of dispute. The Mafia can -- and does -- enforce the contract in the case of either party defaulting. The medieval Church also had the ultimate sanction of excommunication and the threat of the flames of hell if a marriage partner divorced his wife or tried to dispossess her when he died. And, of course, that was a very real fear in those days.I used to know a couple called Billy and Flo who had a cottage next to me in the hamlet I lived in when I was was first married. They were in their 80s and got on in just the way that you'd expect. I would often chat with Billy, a retired farm labourer, over the garden fence as he pottered about in his greenhouse at the end of his long garden to which he used to escape as frequently as possible. If Flo called him from the kitchen for a meal, Bill would mutter to me : "Silly old cow". Sometimes, if I bumped into Flo, she would be looking for Billy: "Where's Billy? I've got a job for him to do in the house but I can't find him!"As I say, it was a normal sort of marriage. Except it wasn't a marriage in the normal way. One day I saw them getting off the bus from town at the end of the country lane leading where we lived. She was wearing a beautiful costume and Billy was wearing a suit! They had carnations in their buttonholes. "What's all this?" I said. "We've just got married," they replied. They had got married because they would then be entitled to some sort of extra state benefit to which they were not qualified before. However, in the eyes of the world (that is, in the hamlet of about 30 people in which we lived) they had already been validly married for over half a century. Billy and Flo had been living in a common law marriage, of course. For centuries, common law marriages were far more common than church marriages for
RE: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
I suppose that is one of the positives that Bush has going for him: You know where he stands on many issues. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:05 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage Keith, I heard the argument this morning that this was actually a plus for Bush since his position is well known and Democratic candidates risk losing support no matter what position they take. Bill On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:36:15 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Great posting. Most things seem to be ending in parody. This seems to include marriage. arthur -Original Message-From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:00 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriageIn addition to the impossible problem of Iraq, Bush now faces another impossible problem -- this time not of his own making. Same-sex marriage is now legal in England and in most of western Europe (I think) but now it looks as though the courts are going to have to push this through in America in the interests of the individual versus the state -- in this case a state which is currently headed by a man who avers that he is a fundamentalist Christian.Most of the problem -- in fact, all of the problem -- is due to the fact that the whole notion of marriage has been obscured and complicated by the intrusion of both the church and the state into private affairs.What is marriage? It is nothing more and nothing less than a publicly-witnessed business contract. I am not well-versed enough to go back in history to the beginnings of marriage thousands of years ago (of quite different sorts in different cultures) but we can clearly see the practice of western marriage in its essentials in medieval England when it was a matter of ensuring that the intended wife would have full claims to the worldly goods of the putative husband if he died -- "with all my goods I thee endow" and so forth. (And vice versa. In Tudor England, women controlled more wealth than men.)It was witnessed in church and recorded by the minister of the church because the latter was one of the few in those days who could write, and thus be able, if necessary, to communicate with any other churches in the following years if a dispute ever arose as to the validity of the marriage. In turbulent times when kings, princes and local barons could come and go overnight, the medieval Church was the one universal constant from horizon to horizon throughout Europe. Many different cultural variants of the Christian business ceremony occurred in other parts of the world with different dominant religions, and each would have clear provisions concerning the destination of any worldly goods if the marriage broke up or one of the participants died.The medieval marriage ceremony was but a grander version of what frequently goes on even now in southern Italy and parts of Russia where a business contract is best witnessed by the Mafia (for a suitable commission!) because the state cannot be relied upon to enforce the contract in case of dispute. The Mafia can -- and does -- enforce the contract in the case of either party defaulting. The medieval Church also had the ultimate sanction of excommunication and the threat of the flames of hell if a marriage partner divorced his wife or tried to dispossess her when he died. And, of course, that was a very real fear in those days.I used to know a couple called Billy and Flo who had a cottage next to me in the hamlet I lived in when I was was first married. They were in their 80s and got on in just the way that you'd expect. I would often chat with Billy, a retired farm labourer, over the garden fence as he pottered about in his greenhouse at the end of his long garden to which he used to escape as frequently as possible. If Flo called him from the kitchen for a meal, Bill would mutter to me : "Silly old cow". Sometimes, if I bumped into Flo, she would be looking for Billy: "Where's Billy? I've got a job for him to do in the house but I can't find him!"As I say, it was a normal sort of marriage. Except it wasn't a marriage in the normal way. One day I saw them getting off the bus from town at the end of the country lane leading where we lived. She was wearing a beautiful costume and Billy was wearing a suit! They had carnations in their buttonholes. "What's all this?"
Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
At 13:04 19/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: Bill, Keith, I heard the argument this morning that this was actually a plus for Bush since his position is well known and Democratic candidates risk losing support no matter what position they take. Bill M'mm -- interesting! Keith On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:36:15 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Great posting. Most things seem to be ending in parody. This seems to include marriage. arthur -Original Message- From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage In addition to the impossible problem of Iraq, Bush now faces another impossible problem -- this time not of his own making. Same-sex marriage is now legal in England and in most of western Europe (I think) but now it looks as though the courts are going to have to push this through in America in the interests of the individual versus the state -- in this case a state which is currently headed by a man who avers that he is a fundamentalist Christian. Most of the problem -- in fact, all of the problem -- is due to the fact that the whole notion of marriage has been obscured and complicated by the intrusion of both the church and the state into private affairs. What is marriage? It is nothing more and nothing less than a publicly-witnessed business contract. I am not well-versed enough to go back in history to the beginnings of marriage thousands of years ago (of quite different sorts in different cultures) but we can clearly see the practice of western marriage in its essentials in medieval England when it was a matter of ensuring that the intended wife would have full claims to the worldly goods of the putative husband if he died -- with all my goods I thee endow and so forth. (And vice versa. In Tudor England, women controlled more wealth than men.) It was witnessed in church and recorded by the minister of the church because the latter was one of the few in those days who could write, and thus be able, if necessary, to communicate with any other churches in the following years if a dispute ever arose as to the validity of the marriage. In turbulent times when kings, princes and local barons could come and go overnight, the medieval Church was the one universal constant from horizon to horizon throughout Europe. Many different cultural variants of the Christian business ceremony occurred in other parts of the world with different dominant religions, and each would have clear provisions concerning the destination of any worldly goods if the marriage broke up or one of the participants died. The medieval marriage ceremony was but a grander version of what frequently goes on even now in southern Italy and parts of Russia where a business contract is best witnessed by the Mafia (for a suitable commission!) because the state cannot be relied upon to enforce the contract in case of dispute. The Mafia can -- and does -- enforce the contract in the case of either party defaulting. The medieval Church also had the ultimate sanction of excommunication and the threat of the flames of hell if a marriage partner divorced his wife or tried to dispossess her when he died. And, of course, that was a very real fear in those days. I used to know a couple called Billy and Flo who had a cottage next to me in the hamlet I lived in when I was was first married. They were in their 80s and got on in just the way that you'd expect. I would often chat with Billy, a retired farm labourer, over the garden fence as he pottered about in his greenhouse at the end of his long garden to which he used to escape as frequently as possible. If Flo called him from the kitchen for a meal, Bill would mutter to me : Silly old cow. Sometimes, if I bumped into Flo, she would be looking for Billy: Where's Billy? I've got a job for him to do in the house but I can't find him! As I say, it was a normal sort of marriage. Except it wasn't a marriage in the normal way. One day I saw them getting off the bus from town at the end of the country lane leading where we lived. She was wearing a beautiful costume and Billy was wearing a suit! They had carnations in their buttonholes. What's all this? I said. We've just got married, they replied. They had got married because they would then be entitled to some sort of extra state benefit to which they were not qualified before. However, in the eyes of the world (that is, in the hamlet of about 30 people in which we lived) they had already been validly married for over half a century. Billy and Flo had been living in a common law marriage, of course. For centuries, common law marriages were far more common than church marriages for ordinary people without much by way of worldly goods when they set up home together. In an everyday sense they were quite as valid as church marriages. The only difference between a common law marriage and a church marriage was that
Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage
Keith and Arthur, Excellent discussion on the history of marriage. There are several good books that are at least forty years old since I had them in college in the 1960s. Thanks for this contribution. REH - Original Message - From: Keith Hudson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage At 13:04 19/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:Bill, Keith,I heard the argument this morning that this was actually a plus for Bush since his position is well known and Democratic candidates risk losing support no matter what position they take.BillM'mm -- interesting! Keith On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:36:15 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Great posting. Most things seem to be ending in parody. This seems to include marriage. arthur -Original Message- From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage In addition to the impossible problem of Iraq, Bush now faces another impossible problem -- this time not of his own making. Same-sex marriage is now legal in England and in most of western Europe (I think) but now it looks as though the courts are going to have to push this through in America in the interests of the individual versus the state -- in this case a state which is currently headed by a man who avers that he is a fundamentalist Christian. Most of the problem -- in fact, all of the problem -- is due to the fact that the whole notion of marriage has been obscured and complicated by the intrusion of both the church and the state into private affairs. What is marriage? It is nothing more and nothing less than a publicly-witnessed business contract. I am not well-versed enough to go back in history to the beginnings of marriage thousands of years ago (of quite different sorts in different cultures) but we can clearly see the practice of western marriage in its essentials in medieval England when it was a matter of ensuring that the intended wife would have full claims to the worldly goods of the putative husband if he died -- "with all my goods I thee endow" and so forth. (And vice versa. In Tudor England, women controlled more wealth than men.) It was witnessed in church and recorded by the minister of the church because the latter was one of the few in those days who could write, and thus be able, if necessary, to communicate with any other churches in the following years if a dispute ever arose as to the validity of the marriage. In turbulent times when kings, princes and local barons could come and go overnight, the medieval Church was the one universal constant from horizon to horizon throughout Europe. Many different cultural variants of the Christian business ceremony occurred in other parts of the world with different dominant religions, and each would have clear provisions concerning the destination of any worldly goods if the marriage broke up or one of the participants died. The medieval marriage ceremony was but a grander version of what frequently goes on even now in southern Italy and parts of Russia where a business contract is best witnessed by the Mafia (for a suitable commission!) because the state cannot be relied upon to enforce the contract in case of dispute. The Mafia can -- and does -- enforce the contract in the case of either party defaulting. The medieval Church also had the ultimate sanction of excommunication and the threat of the flames of hell if a marriage partner divorced his wife or tried to dispossess her when he died. And, of course, that was a very real fear in those days. I used to know a couple called Billy and Flo who had a cottage next to me in the hamlet I lived in when I was was first married. They were in their 80s and got on in just the way that you'd expect. I would often chat with Billy, a retired farm labourer, over the garden fence as he pottered about in his greenhouse at the end of his long garden to which he used to escape as frequently as possible. If Flo called him from the kitchen for a meal, Bill would mutter to me : "Silly old cow". Sometimes, if I bumped into Flo, she would be looking for Billy: "Where's Billy? I've got a job for him to do in the house but I can't find him!" As I say, it was a normal sort of marriage. Except it wasn't a marriage in the normal way. One day
