Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
The Definition of Marriage - John Corvino
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 сен 2012
- Opponents of same-sex marriage often claim that same-sex "marriage" is impossible by definition: that marriage just MEANS a man and a woman. Here, John Corvino shows how this argument misunderstands both history and language.
Find the book here: amzn.to/ZuIrsl.
Video by Chase Whiteside. Read more at JohnCorvino.com.
"Mmm. Guacamole. Taste like lawyers." Ha!
If your not a Christian, it's not a christian marriage. If people of the same sex want to be married in a legal context, whatever. If people of the same sex proclaim Christianity and have a Christian Marriage, whatever. I don't remember being told I was supposed to judge anyone for what they say or do at judgement day in my beliefs. Don't remember anyone telling me to fight against homosexual marriages either.
I know several gay couples that have been together and monogamous for over 30 years.
Meanwhile, most heterosexual marriages and couples I know last between 0 and 10 years.
My own wife cheated on me twice.
I know a woman who married a man, within 3 months was living with another man and pregnant with his child - but still married and wanted to get back with her 'husband.'
Promiscuity happens because of people's lack of commitment, not because of their sexuality. You're generalising.
I know exactly what you are talking about. I see the exact same thing with destructive heterosexual relationships and no one says a word while same-sex relationships are thriving. People need to get their heads out of the sand and see how the world has changed.
Thank you John Corvino. You have put so many ideas so succinctly. Awesome!
Awesome vid! This is an argument I so often hear from opponents of same sex marriage, appeals to popularity, tradition, and special pleading. As if the current definition is indelible and has always been the same.
Of course, as you pointed out, older forms of marriage typically had little to do with love and more to do with practical matters.
Fact is, there is no good reason to illegalize same sex marriage. Not one.
Why can I only click the "Like" Button Once?!
It's always fun when someone squawks that "marrige is about children!" so you ask them when they'll be supporting demands that all marriages are automatically annulled upon the female reaching menopause. Those same people then decide that "marriage is all about children... except for how it's not".
"I know I'm going to lose this argument, so I'll just ragequit."
John, what do you think of getting rid of civil marriage all together? people should be able to marry anyway they want, any church, in a casino, with friends and family, etc. and all the effects of a civil marriage should be just optional and regulated by custom made contacts in each case. no?
You SAY that nobody has tried to turn lawyers into guacamole in France, but it IS France. I'm sure someone has tried at least once.
Ah, logic is a beautiful thing...
Avocado comes from advocate. The Avocado resembles a testicle which "testifies" to the sex of a mammal. But no one is arguing that avocodos are lawyers. I guess you could call "gay marriage" a thing, it's just not, entymologically speaking, a "real marriage." At best, it's"like" a marriage. Matrimony means to"make one a mother." This guy's smart, not quite smart enough though.
Love this! Thanks for the post!
Rofl! love the ending! and the whole video for that matter :)
Hello Mr Corvino,
I have a very unconventional view of marriage in general and when it comes to gay marriage, well there are some points that I think you should consider. Historically marriage is a religious ceremony, particular to the catholic faiths, although most cultures have their version of it. I see it as a spiritual union which used to be and should be devoid of government involvement. Only recently were marriage incenses were given out by courts-1980's prior to this you didn't need one!
John, the sound on my iPad Pro 10.5, was not working for a few days; I must use headphones to hear anything. Sir, I put this video on, and the sound now works! Has your voice always been squeaky? Anyway, thank you for fixing my iPad and great videos by the way. Do you have anything to say about cause and effect, and jumping to wrong conclusions?
There have never been, nor will there ever be, a formidable argument against same sex marriage because there has never been, nor will there ever be, a good reason against same sex marriage.
>"Quite simply, a union by two people who can give consent."
This. This right here. I cannot begin to quote you enough for truth, sir.
I am of the opinion that two consenting and reasonable adults whose relationship would otherwise be broadly ignored if they were with people of the opposing sex instead of the same one, ought to be able to make a decision about their commitment to one another without bearing the protests of people claiming they do not deserve the right to be with who they love.
You double dipped the chip, you savage!
Love your videos. You dive deep but you explain everything in a manner where everything isn't "dressed up".
Brilliant!!! Thanks for posting these!!!
Why two? What is meant by union? You forget the part where it is administered by the government rather than a religious institution.
Which is precisely why it should be considered a civil union and not a marriage.
How would one be able to separate the sexuality of a person from the person?
By saying the sexuality of a person is unequal to another sexuality, the logical move from your statement is stating that the person is unequal to another. It doesn't make sense to say, "My sexuality is better than yours, but we're still equal as people, which is why you shouldn't get married and raise kids."
Could you please consider captioning your clips? Those are very important topics and I'd love to get your clips out to the deaf community. Unfortunately auto-captioning is not accurate but you can use it and edit out any mistakes, etc. Pretty please with cherry on top of it?
Actually no, as by legal definition those are crimes, so no, they are not legally the same. Also, "love" is not part of the legal definition of marriage. It's a civil matter that confers certain legal rights and obligations. Love is a cultural and often religious component of marriage - to say nothing of a personal one - but the court does not recognize or require that you love each other, just fill out the paperwork correctly.
In CEP v. Bruning, note the Court dismissed it "for want of a substantial *federal* question." The states retain the right to declare what they recognize; the federal government abstains from a ruling.
Baker v. Nelson has been ruled an erroneous citing in dismissal in Appeals in its home state of Minnesota as of 2011, in Benson v. Alverson, while with Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority citing fundamental rights to marriage and privacy in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
"Mr. Cooper, Baker v. Nelson was 1971. The Supreme Court hadn’t even decided that gender-based classifications get any kind of heightened scrutiny. And the same-sex intimate conduct was considered criminal in many States in 1971, so I don’t think we can extract much in Baker v. Nelson." - Justice Ginsberg from Prop 8 case this week.
So yes, please proceed, governor.
PART 1 / No one is currently preventing gay people from getting married in this country. Gays can very well rent a venue, invite some family and friends, buy two rings, and stage a traditional marriage if they want to. The police are not going to crack down on gays for doing that.
The real issue is with the gov giving gays legal benfits. I think the original intent of legal marriage was to encourage biological parents to get married or stay married for the kids.
Furthermore, the court hasn't struck down the First and Second Appeals court rulings right the moment it was made, clearly, so while there's nothing in the Constitution for it, there is unlikely to be anything in the Constitution against it.
And any ruling which discourages discrimination beats none at all. Equality can't be won in a fell swoop, but can always be won in steps.
2:45 - >Tastes Like lawyers
>continues eating
I dunno man. I'm not sure what a lawyer tastes like, but that ambulance exhaust marination can't be good fer yer health.
tasted a few lawyers, have we? ;-)
Quite simply, a union by two people who can give consent. (Thus meaning they have to be of adult age and cannot be an animal or an appliance, since minors, animals and toasters cannot give consent.)
Just like it was in Ancient Rome, when people were free to marry whomever they wanted - including same-sex marriages.
"Marriage is ordained of God" and no matter what kind of new things people come up with, it is a sacred union between man and woman. The truth does not change just because more people start supporting another idea.
I love all the videos.I am going to send them to my Mother. Maybe she will get it. Thanks
Actually, it originally didn't have any religious connotations at all. It was a civil matter.
Specifically with regards to the Christian churches, they didn't have any involvement until they were forced to be the record keepers in the 6th Century - but it was still a non-religious thing. (They just had the best storage outside of the Roman Empire).
Marriage didn't become a "Christian Sacrament" until the 14th Century, and there were no "religious Christian weddings" until the 12th Century.
Marriage itself derives from religious definitions of all cultures, including pagans, Muslims, and Christians, among many others. For centuries marriage had been integrated into governments because of a conscious integration of church and state. The United States was founded on terms that included separation of church and state. We should continue to treat marriage as a religious institution and keep government out of it, even for heterosexuals. The government should have no involvement.
You never hear the opponents to gay marriage complain about marrying ketchups.
Great John!
"Unconstitutional," as in, not adhering to the Constitution as ruled by a federal court. The Supreme Court is a federal court as are many others.
Here, a federal court's made a ruling. Several have, and have specifically noted it violates Constitutional articles. There's no existing countermand from the Supreme Court to strike down these Appeals Court rulings of unconstitutionality. The Supreme Court, therefore, hasn't countered the ruling to say there should be a denial of rights.
I don't mean you haven't talked about it at all, I meant in that specific coment.
I think we're in agreement. Nobody (usually) invites someone to watch in their bedroom, so it shouldn't be anybody else's business.
I think it's important to have a society recognition of marriage for any legal senses, such as next of kin, and government is best placed to be a records keeper of this.
But no, they shouldn't be dictating terms. It is a private commitment.
I can't comment on the tax benefits argument, because I don't believe my country has them, so I have no direct knowledge
I don't know who this man is but is but he is wise beyond his years
liked and favorited and might even post this on facebook =)
T'was hardly for you; it was more for those who might go into a possible appeal to authority without seeing what is backing them.
He has video on that. "If gay marriage, why not polygamy?" is the title.
John please make a video specifically about the argument that "marriage is a Christian institution"!
That'd be a role reversal.
Originally marriage was a civil matter - and two people saying "I marry you" to each other, in front of witnesses, was enough. Little or no government involvement, certainly no religious involvement.
The first time the Christian churches were involved was purely as record-keepers in the 7th Century. They didn't have a religious ceremony until the 12th Century, and it wasn't a "sacrament" until the 14th century.
So yes, put it in the government's hands. Not religion.
That's rather a massive generalisation.
My ex-wife from my heterosexual marriage had 2 affairs.
I know another woman who got married & within 3 months was living with another man, pregnant with his baby, while still married.
Meanwhile, All of the homosexual couples I know have been highly monogamous, one couple has been together for 30 years.
People of any sexual orientation can be sleazebags that cheat on their spouse. It's the individual's lack of morals, not their sexuality.
But he did do that (in the book you cited). And I fail to see how these are "straw men" arguments as he's mainly stating facts, and also point out the real arguments that organizations such as NOM and FRC use. If you have some others that he didn't mention feel free to mention them and we can discuss further.
"In 2011 the Obama administration decided it would no longer defend DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) in court, arguing that it was unconstitutional."
"Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes" and "Section 3 of DOMA has been found unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including the First and Second Circuit Court of Appeals."
Not even my own words. I'm just quoting from news and light reference sources.
Interesting court opinions, no?
Great arguments! I'm sad to say that when I cited marriage's mutable history, though, my opponents claimed all those historians and researchers must be wrong -_-
Here's an idea: before abolishing gay marriage, let's abolish divorce. That is, if not more so, just as damaging (as the conservatives often claim gay marriage is). Seeing as divorce is as 'bad and evil' as gay marriage, I think we need laws against divorce as well. Seems only right to me.
Given Mr. Rondeau's previous credentials, affiliations, and motivations, forgive me if I am skeptical of him and his own rhetoric.
The argument against has usually to do with "identity".
Secondly, just those two examples are obviously governmental and legal, not at all religious.
As there's countless religions, each claiming to be true, and all others being wrong or even evil: of marriges under other religions, would they recognise such aforementioned rights (inheritance, visitation), let alone the marriges themselves? Doubtful. So that'd cause more problems.
"athiest/agnostic centers" We just call it the Large Hadron Collider. Obviously, we're busy with other things.
Xunkun,
You make an interesting point. I realize there are a lot of cultish/fantatic psuedo-christian sects especially in the United States, however my point being you could go to any spiritual establishment you'd like, I mean I'm even down for having athiest/agnostic centers if that's what you're into. And to reiterate I understand the job benefits problem but to abolish marriage liscensing sanctioned by gov't you could get married and thus that problem would be solved.
No one is arguing that red and green are the same thing. The meaning of marriage isn't about sex or gender. It is about commitment. Did you even watch the video? Are you so close minded that you don't even know how to listen to another human being talk?
I'm sorry to say it, but you're part of the problem if you think marriage is being deprived by expanding in scope. That's what language does: it changes. GET OVER IT.
Funny... The courts across the states don't agree with each other. Some states recognize same sex marriage, some don't. To lump them all together and presume that the opinion of a majority of states makes the law of the land would be ignorant.
Similarly, consider that no federal court statement has been issued whereby the legal marriages issued prior to the Prop 8 issue in California were annulled and that New York and Iowa still legally recognize same sex marriages with no higher interference.
What exactly is "not true?"
And yes, I focus on Christianity because they're the most vocal opponents to marriage equality.
Marriage definitely predates Christianity - the Chinese had marriages for centuries before Christ's birth.
And there are references in historical texts, such as Cicero's writings, that prove the existance of same-sex marriage during the Roman Empire, again before Christianity.
By all means, spread the fun. There will always be people whose idea of defending a position means being as vulgar, petty, and insulting as possible, and I've yet to find a better definition of them.
Does the word 'unconstitutional' mean something different to you than the rest of us? Basically, Sec 3 violates the Constitution's rules on equality, not marriage. Constitution never talked about marriage, heterosexual or homosexual. It's always been about equality, and now It's been ruled by the First and Second Court of Appeals; this means that now there's precedent to declare the discrimination enacted by Section 3 to be null and void, including not recognizing already enacted gay marriages.
Then why not change it? We done so before.
How do colours want?
That's not true. Besides, you're focusing on Christianity too much. There was marriage before Christianity but it was culturally integrated with multiple religions throughout history for the purpose of procreation. I think I take a pretty different stance on this in saying that the government should no grant additional "rights" or benefits to any couple hetero or homosexual. By doing this you simply discriminate against the single individual who have no desire to get married.
Continuing, my question is this: Why does the gay community feel so strongly about getting the government to approve of same sex unions when the government shouldn't have any say to begin with? You can get married or have a union but you cannot get the paper right? And I know that plays into job benefits, insurance coverage, etc. but shouldn't we all push to revoke marriage licensing by gov't and put it back into the hands of religious/spiritual institutions? What do you think?
If he doesn't get back to you, I'd be willing to type these up for you! Let me know :)
You should be the president of the Mean Party.
If you got so much to say,instead of typing comment after comment just make a video response.
I suppose in their own heads that is a valid point. But it just means that they shouldn't have gay marriages held in their churches - because the specific church is against it - and no one is making them. If it was legal it would just mean that gays would be able to get married. And why would they want to get married in a church that doesn't accept them anyway.
AntariusAU,
Ideally we have freedom of religion and personally I feel that as humans we can believe whatever we want and it's really no bodies business but yourself because when you make it someone elses business that's where problems characteristic of organized religions happen. That being said, wither or not marriage was first a relgious or civil matter it wasn't always and shouldn't be a poltical matter I mean isn't that the problem, people legislating who we can and cannot marry?
Well said. Thanks.
I guess you missed the fact that marriages originally included same-sex marriages? There's recorded instances of same-sex marriage - even with 2 of the roman emperors.
I think you might benefit from watching these again, and stop trying to redefine history.
John I want to know about marriage in the bible
You are conflating religious marriage and civil marriage. Religious definitions of marriage do not form a legal basis for granting marriage licenses in a secular, civil society such as America. If it did, when which religion would prevail? Would jewish people be forbidden to marry if the bible were the law of the land? And what about divorce? It's clearly forbidden in the bible, many, many times.
The fact I have even one state court supports and approves of same sex marriage indicates that the United States government has not stepped in with a federal mandate.
You are not making arguments so much as simply insulting the people whom you do not agree with.
We as a people are all going to suffer God's wrath over gay marriages, abortions, lust...just breaks my heart.
+GLORIA BULT Oh, get over yourself, Gloria! The only people suffering over this are bigots like you.
+GLORIA BULT You may well be the wrath you fear. That a human being could say what you just did speaks of some kind of wrath visited on you... my condolences.
+plain eng I'm guessing you have never heard about Sodom and Gomorrah!
Old book, old story... Evangelical Christianity is a scourge on humanity. So is Islam. I bet you have heard of both.
More of that book of fairy tales you cling to so strongly, Gloria. Face it - Marriage equality is the law of the land, your "savior" took the White House with next to no good result, and the world continues to turn unabated. But you go ahead and live in fear - It's certainly what you're best at. Just keep your fear in your backyard where it belongs.
So what is the proposed definition of marriage that the LGBT community advocates? Test any of these and you will rapidly understand the view of the opposition.
great stuff...
You're right, right wing politicians don't just have backwards views, gay marriage will destroy the economy. Give one real argument against gay marriage. Way to resort to name calling by the way, that seemed like the mature thing to do, didn't it?
I have a single question. Your statement heavily implies that homosexuals are not normal, or equal. Normality I think is a personal opinion, relative to each and every person. Equality however... well, in America, it is a given that each and every person is equal simply by basis of being human. Unless you are stating that gays somehow stop being human at some point(a laughable argument), aren't you denying one of the founding principles of our country?
Well argued sir.
But you are not talking about same sex marriage, you are talkng about polygamy, incnest ect. Those are different things.
watch his other video "The purpose of sex" ....that should explain your answer.
Hi, I'm Troy Mcclure...
That'd be awesome! Thanks! He haven't gotten back to me :( :(
as much as i do agree with you i have to say that some people really do believe that god thinks of homosexuality as a sin. sure the bible says many things are sins but its still a pretty good reason. now i personnally don't believe it because god made me just the way i am perfect in his eyes and in his image. me being gay was no mistake he gave it to me. and i was receptive.
No, my reasoning isn't weak. And your reasoning is ridiculous. Mostly because you're trying to find a reason to treat other human beings like they're less than you are. And that's always going to fail. It's always going to fail because good always wins. As cliché and ridiculously infantile as that sounds, it's true. Good prevails. The people that want everyone to be treated fairly and equally? They're the ones who win. Eventually, they win. We win. And you lose. So have fun in the dark ages.
He emphasizes opposite sex polygamy in that video, not SS. SS polygamy/polyandry is completely different ballgame, it will be the next SS marriage enacted. That and SS incest and pederasty, with accompanying NAMBLA-funded lobbying for lowering the age of consent to 14. And those guys are very, very wealthy. Some elements operate in the shadows. Corvino won't say. He's very politically correct when he has to be.
Not even in France.
For this issue, I love what the Mexican government, which has dealt with the Roman Catholic Church for centuries, finally did in 2010. The federal government simply "defined" marriage as the "civil union of two adults." This ended the debate and, although the individual Mexican states, such as Baja California, bastion of a lot of fundamentalist Christians, can still argue, the matter is settled as far a recognition of the supreme law of the land throughout the entire country. I find it interesting that Catholic countries like The Netherlands, Spain, Argentina and Mexico did this well before it happened in the USA. I also heard my former Catholic pastor clearly separate the two when he commented that the proper term for Catholics is "matrimony" which implies that a woman is involved in the very term. "Leave the word marriage for the state and secular governments." There's been a heck of a lot of debate on this issue and one of my former high school friends is a pastor in Alabama. He publicly stated that he couldn't understand why gays were seeking this and I listed several issues that same-sex couples had run into in the past. I find this real funny since, just a year before the whole Proposition 8 thing happened, here in California, none other than the Knights of Columbus appeared to be endorsing stuff like permanent civil unions due to some people not being able to live alone and it being a kind of necessity. Then they side with auxiliary bishop Cordileone, from San Diego along with the Mormon Church to fund the anti-gay marriage proposition 8, which was originally struck down by the California courts, only to be struck down by the US Supreme Court, a few years later. Such a waste of useless energy and no, legal marriage for anybody, regardless of orientation, hasn't hurt anything. In fact, the divorce rate for straight couples continues to rise and fewer and fewer couples choose the marriage option all together....
There will be a lowering of consent in the US to age 14, which is the European model. And remember, we are talking SSM pederasty activism here, so it will be instituted in a similar fashion as SSM is.
Well, marrige is still something the government cares about: at least the IRS would take issue with matters of inheritance, which, of course, can be altered by marriges. Another is visitation rights for sick people in non-hetero relationships; if they're not recognised, they're not let in. The rule is there to begin with, has to do with patient confidentiality, which has to do with Public Health board, who answer to the Surgeon General (who is nominated by the President and confirmed by Senate).
It is true what the bible says about the wise men, In the bible the wise will be made to look stupid and the stupid to look wise which one are you. I am just asking
Can same sex pro-create?
No!
Get your knickers on right!
Same sex marriage IS the subject, mister.
Your argument only exists in a world where there is A) no overpopulation problem and B) no such thing as adoption/abandoned children. Families are not made simply when two people bang out a baby. In fact, a lot of those babies are abandoned and need new homes. To deny people marriage simply because they can't NATURALLY create a baby (but can adopt one) is irresponsible. It perpetuates the problem. The idea that these abandoned children should stay gone and aren't worthwhile.
Nope, there's really just no good argument against gay marriage. Of the many I have heard, none have ever given a solid reason about why gay marriage is wrong. The courts have based their decisions on government rhetoric, popular belief, and personal feeling. But they have never once presented legitimate facts or arguments about why gay marriage should be outlawed. You're welcome to BELIEVE there are good reasons, but there aren't any.
You are very vague, it would help by supporting your claims with evidence.
A bigoted law is still bigotry. So irregardless of what the law says, it's still wrong, plain and simple. And something that is wrong has no rightful argument. Laws are created and laws are destroyed, but the law of man is always fallible. Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but in no way does it make you right, irregardless of what law you use to support your argument.
Can infertile couples? I assume you are leading the charge in making sure they can't marry... right?
All except pederasty as a child cannot consent.