the conservative case for same sex marriage

[Irvine511]

i imagine it would vary, if it was defined at all ... too late for me to look it up now.

but here's the thing -- is romantic love a part of this pillar of Western Civilization?

i'd argue that, up until 50 years ago, love had very little to do with most marriages.

[Canadiens1131]

Originally Posted by INDY500

My quote does say "far-Left" does it not?

I'm talking about the revolutionary Left and their useful idiots (especially on college campuses and the web) that will work with anyone who seeks the destruction of Western society and capitalism. The same revolutionary Left that infects the green movement for the same aims. The Left that decries the imperial United States as the great oppressor and abuser of human rights. And the same radical Left that sympathized with communist causes during the Cold War and continues to romanticize Castro, Chavez, Mao and Che.

That Left.

Sorry for any confusion.

I agree with you sometimes, but this "far-left" rhetoric is treading into murky Bill O'Reilly talking points waters. You didn't manage to mention "filthy hippies" or "eco-terrorists" or something about dolphins or Greenpeace though, might want to hit those as well

One can be centrist and be able to rationally look at his country and recognize that it has historically done/is doing some pretty shitty stuff.

[martha]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

if it was defined at all ...

This is what I was wondering.

[MrsSpringsteen]

So..there aren't any gay individuals or couples at Disney on any other given day? Run for your life Mickey!

'Gay Days at Disney' Draws Protest, Warning From the Sky, Christian News

For those living near Disney World in Florida, there is a good chance you saw an aircraft pulling the following banner, “Warning Gay Pride Day@Disney 2Day.”

The message is from the Christian group Florida Family Association, which paid for the banner to run across the sky on Friday and Saturday.

“30,000 children along with their unsuspecting parents will be confronted with the reality of witnessing over 15,000 Gay Pride Day revelers when they enter the Magic Kingdom on June 4, 2011,” wrote FFA on its website.

“Florida Family Association wants to warn these families about this offensive event before they arrive at the Magic Kingdom on Saturday.”

The FFA paid reportedly $7,000, money donated by supporters, to contract an aircraft company to pull two seven-foot high banners during those two days over Disney World, reported Orlando’s WESH-TV. The pro-family group is upset with Disney for allowing Gay Day attendees to hold their event during regular business hours, unlike other special events.

“Disney requires special events like Grad Night and Night of Joy to be held after the Magic Kingdom’s regular operating hours,” contends FFA. “Disney does this to avoid having a large group of likeminded people in the park at the same time with regular patrons who expect a normal day at the Magic Kingdom.”

Gay Days is a six-day gathering, May 31 to June 6, in Orlando. It is an annual event that has taken place for some 20 years.

[Irvine511]

“Warning Jewish Pride Day@Disney 2Day.”

“Warning Black Pride Day@Disney 2Day.”

“Warning Latin Pride Day@Disney 2Day.”

“Warning Women's Pride Day@Disney 2Day.”

imagine how that would feel.

[kramwest1]

I'm going to guess what scares them is that if there was no announcement that it was Gay Pride Day, they wouldn't even know it. It just would be another happy day with happy parents and happy kids at Disney World.

Yes, gay people walk among us, and they are in the most cunning camouflage ever... normal-looking, average people.

[Canadiens1131]

I have a feeling family groups think their kids are going to get showered in free condoms or hit by stray fecal matter from all the public buggery/hedonism going on during Gay Pride Day at Disney.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i'd argue that, up until 50 years ago, love had very little to do with most marriages.

Was Romeo and Juliet written in 1961?

;-)

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Was Romeo and Juliet written in 1961?

;-)

ah, but if i remember high school freshman english, the big argument was whether these kids (they were what, 13 and 15?) were in love or in lust!

(the marriage was just so they could have sex )

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

(the marriage was just so they could have sex )

Not so sure about that one. The (SPOILER ALERT!) dual suicide of the main characters at the end would seem to indicate far more than the antics of two really, really horny teenagers.

And anyone familiar with the poetry of Blake, Shelly, Moore, Shakespeare, (or even a really old dude like Solomon) knows that the notion of romantic love is not exactly a new concept.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Not so sure about that one. The (SPOILER ALERT!) dual suicide of the main characters at the end would seem to indicate far more than the antics of two really, really horny teenagers.

well, teenagers are nothing if not melodramatic, no? besides, it's got to end with either a wedding (comedy) or a funeral (drama).

And anyone familiar with the poetry of Blake, Shelly, Moore, Shakespeare, (or even a really old dude like Solomon) knows that the notion of romantic love is not exactly a new concept.

but was romantic love a prerequisite for marriage?

most of these guys had their female (or, in Shakespeare's case, male) muses. their marriages were often different things.

also, our notion of romantic love is absolutely informed by our understanding of women as legal equals to men, certainly not the case back then as well.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

well, teenagers are nothing if not melodramatic, no? besides, it's got to end with either a wedding (comedy) or a funeral (drama).

Romeo and Juliet has both. And love is nothing if not melodramatic either.

And lines like: "O my love, my wife! Death, that hath suck'd the honey of thy breath/Hath had no power yet upon thy beauty" and "Did my heart love till now? Forswear it, sight!/ For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night" are pretty much in the Hall of Fame as far as pledges of romantic love.

but was romantic love a prerequisite for marriage?

The point of a story like Romeo and Juliet is that, even among upper class families of the time, where marriage was a legal contract used to consolidate power and property, romantic love is still more powerful (for better or worse) than established social hierarchies and distinctions. It's an ancient myth -- the young farmer who loves the princess, and who (against all odds and reason) loves him back, or the reverse (the poor girl who falls for the handsome prince). The role of these myths in our human tapestry is a sign of the enduring role that romantic love has played in our larger human story. It's certainly older than 50 years.

also, our notion of romantic love is absolutely informed by our understanding of women as legal equals to men, certainly not the case back then as well.

Given that most of the romantic poets wrote before our modern notions of equality, one might actually wonder if romantic love is the ultimate equalizer, and if -- long before feminism and civil rights drove the national and international conversation about egalitarianism -- the poets had it right first.

[Irvine511]

the point is that the view of marriage as the ultimate expression of romantic love is a new concept.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

the point is that the view of marriage as the ultimate expression of romantic love is a new concept.

You're going to have to define "new." Greek notions of love incorporated four distinct elements -- agape (unconditional love), phileo (friendship), storge (affection), or eros (passionate love -- where we get our notions of romance). In the New Testament (written two thousand years ago, more or less, and to a primarily Greek audience), St. Paul describes Christ's love for His followers using the illustration of marriage, primarily because marriage incorporates all four elements, including romantic. Again, this was two thousand years ago -- the Song of Songs was written at least five hundred years before that, and this is just within a Biblical context.

So I'm not convinced that romance is a new idea, nor is it new within the context of marriage.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

You're going to have to define "new." Greek notions of love incorporated four distinct elements -- agape (unconditional love), phileo (friendship), storge (affection), or eros (passionate love -- where we get our notions of romance). In the New Testament (written two thousand years ago, more or less, and to a primarily Greek audience), St. Paul describes Christ's love for His followers using the illustration of marriage, primarily because marriage incorporates all four elements, including romantic. Again, this was two thousand years ago -- the Song of Songs was written at least five hundred years before that, and this is just within a Biblical context.

So I'm not convinced that romance is a new idea, nor is it new within the context of marriage.

i think you answered this yourself:

Originally Posted by nathan1977

The point of a story like Romeo and Juliet is that, even among upper class families of the time, where marriage was a legal contract used to consolidate power and property, romantic love is still more powerful (for better or worse) than established social hierarchies and distinctions.

and here's what wikipedia has to say:

Historical definition

Historians believe that the actual English word "romance" developed from a vernacular dialect within the French language meaning "verse narrative"—referring to the style of speech, writing, and artistic talents within elite classes. The word was originally an adverb of the Latin origin "Romanicus," meaning "of the Roman style." The connecting notion is that European medieval vernacular tales were usually about chivalric adventure, not combining the idea of love until late into the seventeenth century.[citation needed]

The word "romance" has also developed with other meanings in other languages such as the early nineteenth century Spanish and Italian definitions of "adventurous" and "passionate", sometimes combining the idea of "love affair" or "idealistic quality."

In primitive societies, tension existed between marriage and the erotic, but this was mostly expressed in taboo regarding the menstrual cycle and birth.[1]

Anthropologists such as Claude Lévi-Strauss show that there were complex forms of courtship in ancient as well as contemporary primitive societies. There may not be evidence, however, that members of such societies formed loving relationships distinct from their established customs in a way that would parallel modern romance.[2]

Before the 18th century, as now, there were many marriages that were not arranged – having risen out of more or less spontaneous relationships. After the 18th century, illicit relationships took on a more independent role. In bourgeois marriage, illicitness may have become more formidable and likely to cause tension.[citation needed] In Ladies of the Leisure Class, Rutgers University professor Bonnie G. Smith depicts courtship and marriage rituals that may be viewed as oppressive to modern people. She writes "When the young women of the Nord married, they did so without illusions of love and romance. They acted within a framework of concern for the reproduction of bloodlines according to financial, professional, and sometimes political interests." Subsequent sexual revolution has lessened the conflicts arising out of liberalism, but not eliminated them.

Anthony Giddens, in his book The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Society, states that romantic love introduced the idea of a narrative into an individual's life. He adds that telling a story was one of the meanings of romance. According to Giddens, the rise of romantic love more or less coincided with the emergence of the novel. It was then that romantic love, associated with freedom and therefore the ideals of romantic love, created the ties between freedom and self-realization.
David R. Shumway, in his book Romance, Intimacy, and The Marriage Crisis, states that the discourse of intimacy emerged in the last third of the 20th century and that this discourse claimed to be able to explain how marriage and other relationships worked. For the discourse of intimacy emotional closeness was much more important than passion. This does not mean by any means that intimacy is to replace romance. On the contrary, intimacy and romance coexist.[3]

The 21st century has seen the growth of globalization and people now live in a world of transformations that affect almost every aspect of our lives, and love has not been the exception. One example of the changes experienced in relationships was explored by Giddens regarding homosexual relationships. According to Giddens since homosexuals were not able to marry they were forced to pioneer more open and negotiated relationships. This kind of relationships then permeated the heterosexual population.

Shumway also states that together with the growth of capitalism the older social relations dissolved, including marriage. Marriage meaning for women changed as they had more socially acceptable alternatives and were less willing to accept unhappy relations and, therefore, divorce rates severely increased.

The discourse of romance continues to exist today together with intimacy. Shumway states that on the one hand, romance is the part that offers adventure and intense emotions while offering the possibility to find the perfect mate. On the other hand, intimacy offers deep communication, friendship, and long lasting sharing.

Popularization of love

The concept of romantic love was popularized in Western culture by the game of courtly love. Troubadours in the Middle Ages engaged in trysts—usually extramarital—with women as a game created for fun rather than for marriage. Since at the time marriage was a formal arrangement,[4] courtly love was a way for people to express the love typically not found in their marriage.[5] In the context of courtly love, "lovers" did not refer necessarily to those engaging in sex, but rather in the act of emotional loving. These lovers had short trysts in secret that escalated mentally but never physically.[6] Rules of the game were even codified. For example, De amore or The Art of Courtly Love, as it is known in English, was written in the 12th century. It lists such rules as "Marriage is no real excuse for not loving", "He who is not jealous cannot love", "No one can be bound by a double love", and "When made public love rarely endures".[7]

Some believe that romantic love evolved independently in multiple cultures. For example, in an article presented by Henry Grunebaum, he argues "therapists mistakenly believe that romantic love is a phenomenon unique to Western cultures and first expressed by the troubadours of the Middle Ages."[8]

The more current and Western traditional terminology meaning "court as lover" or the general idea of "romantic love" is believed to have originated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, primarily from that of the French culture. This idea is what has spurred the connection between the words "romantic" and "lover," thus coining English phrases for romantic love such as "loving like the Romans do." The precise origins of such a connection are unknown, however. Although the word "romance" or the equivalents thereof may not have the same connotation in other cultures, the general idea of "romantic love" appears to have crossed cultures and been accepted as a concept at one point in time or another.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i think you answered this yourself:

Yes. As the Wikipedia page you posted pointed out, romantic love wasn't much of a factor for upper classes, who were primarily focused on the socio-economic/classist benefits of marriage. Romeo and Juliet turned that notion on its head, elevating love -- not class -- as the primary reason for marriage. In this, the story was hardly revolutionary, since it was simply a re-telling of a tragic romance that stretched at least back to antiquity, and served as an indictment to upper-class values (as Shakespeare's plays were wont to do). The romance novel as a genre certainly came later, but as with most narratives, had its roots much, much earlier.

Your contention was that "up until 50 years ago, love had very little to do with most marriages", something you've said in other threads. While I don't disagree that romance was hardly the defining element of relationships before the turn of this century, to say that it's a new idea doesn't hold up historically. As I said, Christian writings from two thousand years ago discuss love and marriage, and have a much broader definition of love than simply romance. And that's just within a Christian context.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Your contention was that "up until 50 years ago, love had very little to do with most marriages", something you've said in other threads. While I don't disagree that romance was hardly the defining element of relationships before the turn of this century, to say that it's a new idea doesn't hold up historically. As I said, Christian writings from two thousand years ago discuss love and marriage, and have a much broader definition of love than simply romance. And that's just within a Christian context.

and my contention is the modern reader projecting his own modern prejudices onto old writings.

i do think, absolutely, that marriage as the ultimate (and also only legitimate) expression of romantic love is a generally new idea.

you can cast a wider net, certainly, but the central assertion really hasn't been challenged. the idea that, well, "love is a force of nature" as a more modern version of R&J (in cowboy boots!) would tell is is certainly as old as the tale of said "star crossed lovers," but as it pertains to marriage, it's something very modern.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i do think, absolutely, that marriage as the ultimate (and also only legitimate) expression of romantic love is a generally new idea.

The nature of love itself has been debated as long ago as Plato's Symposium, and was a continuous source of discussion throughout Greek writings. Because I believe that what we now refer to as romance would be closest to the Greek notion of "eros," I would say again that romantic love -- as an ideal or as a reality -- is hardly a new or novel notion.

the idea that, well, "love is a force of nature" as a more modern version of R&J (in cowboy boots!) would tell is is certainly as old as the tale of said "star crossed lovers," but as it pertains to marriage, it's something very modern.

I hesitate to raise the issue of religion in this thread, in part because I believe that the issue of same-sex marriage is primarily a civil issue. But there are a number of texts in the Scriptures, particularly the New Testament, that stress love as central to the marriage relationship -- again, because Saint Paul had the insight that marriage is, at its core, a picture of God's great unconditional love for us. This is not just a Judeo-Christian construct either, since Confucius is quoted as saying "Marriage is the union of two different surnames, in friendship and in love".

To say that love is a new concept in marriage overlooks thousands of years of philosophy, theology, poetry and artistry that say the opposite.

[Irvine511]

again: i'm not saying love is new. i'm saying that marriage as the ultimate expression of romantic love is a new thing.

you're painting with a much broader brush than i am.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i'm saying that marriage as the ultimate expression of romantic love is a new thing.

Not for Christians....