Still, I would appreciate if the concern about the insulting connotation of the word weren't just, erm... dismissed. (I suppose I'm looking lian-wards right now...)

Fair point, with one catch: if it wasn't clear from my post -- it's not the concern itself but the argument put forth ("where I come from...") that I find rather feeble. AFAIK; no-one's been calling Malachy a troll, and I wouldn't either -- but pointing out (perceived) trollish tendencies in his posting behaviour is *not* the same thing.

You may very well level the same reproach at my utterances, but that doesn't mean you've insulted me as a person -- also because I am aware that we might not share the same definitions of what 'trollish' includes.

*shrugs*   

Either way, I did not mean to insult, but I accept that my undisguised derision was not exactly... --> diplomatic.

;)

Wow:
 

Do you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress and state governments to make it illegal to burn the American flag?" N=484, MoE ± 5 (Form A)
Favor: 56%   Oppose: 41%   Unsure: 3%

vs
 

 
"Some people feel that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to make it illegal to burn or desecrate the American flag as a form of political dissent. Others say that the U.S. Constitution should not be amended to specifically prohibit flag burning or desecration. Do you think the U.S. Constitution should or should not be amended to prohibit burning or desecrating the American flag?" N=516, MoE ± 5 (Form B)
Should be Amended: 45%   Should Not Be Amended: 54%   Unsure: 2   

Polling really is the devil's art.

[ September 17, 2007: Message edited by: Binky ]

They're not that different.  Do you support or oppose an amendment to the constitution, vs do you think the constitution should or should not be amended.

even if I supported the concept of banning flag burning, I would not support the second version of the question, because arbitrary laws like that have no place in a constitution - the constitution is for describing how the government is run and how the laws are made, it's not for laws themselves beyond those that govern the fundamental rights and responsibilities of citizens.

[ September 17, 2007: Message edited by: mabinogi ]

Just thought I'd throw this in. It relates to the original topic.

Marriage: A transaction and resulting contract in which a woman and man are recognised by society as having a continuing claim to the right of sexual access to one another, and in which the woman involved is eligible to bear children (as in, is of legal marriagable age as defined by her culture), backed by legal, economic and social forces (also culturally defined.) Marriage is universal to all cultures.

If you just substitute in/out the person of whichever gender you wish to make it same-sex, the definition doesn't change. It's still about the continuing claim to the right of sexual access and marriagable age is taken in to count by our culture already. The only issue is getting the social, legal and economic forces to recognise it.

'Civil unions' and 'marriage' are the same thing. Sexual access, backed by proper forces.

I know. I'm slow to come to discussions.

@Jen: Thus speaketh the cultural anthropologist. *g*

Good point, well made.

You know, it wasn't so long ago that interracial marriages were verboten (socially if not legally), and while you still get a pissy section of the population who fuss about it, nobody really cares much anymore.

The same will be true of gay marriage fifty years from now, I think.

So, you mean right as in right to exclude others, rather than right to demand performance?

I don't think marital rape falls outside this context at all.  Marriage has a number of rights, duties and expectations attached to it that shape its definition.  One of those is that people used to seriously believe that marriage equalled irrevocable presumed consent.  One of the few old grounds for annulment was if the marriage wasn't consummated - see Henry VIII's first marriage.  In the original Napoleonic Code men could divorce for adultery but not women.  Just as women were obliged to provide sex, men were obliged to provide financial support, and abandonment was grounds for divorce on the part of women.  There are still hangovers of those expectations today in our family law.

One of the reasons I think same sex relationships freak people out is that they're a direct challenge to the way gender divides most of our families, as in, who wears the pants?  If there's two guys, you know, who has be the woman and do the laundry and other crap jobs?  Why would a man consent to such a role?  What if my wife realises that I'm physically capable of cleaning up after myself  Or the other way round, insert stereotype here.

Marriage is a far more romantic thing now than it once was - see Jane Austen.  The old school variety would be completely inappropriate for most modern Western couples, especially same sex ones.  I'm quite sympathetic towards those activists who say "marriage? why in hell would we want to sign up to that?"

Binky wrote:

So, you mean right as in right to exclude others, rather than right to demand performance?

Yes. :)

cyan wrote:

I think sex in a marital relationship has more to do with an expectation of monogamy, i.e., if your spouse wants sex, he/she seeks you out for that activity, not someone else.  Whether or not you choose to participate, and for why (be it a sense of duty, in order to procreate, maintain peace in the relationship, or you just want to too), is another matter, but you still get to choose.]

Yes to that, too, taking into context the fact that different cultures have different definitions of what is or isn't inclusive in the marriage. Monogamy isn't the only way it works. :)

cyan wrote:

Rape, marital or not, imho, has nothing to do with sex.  It has to do with power.  It is an act of violence.  It is one person imposing his/her will upon another through the use of physical force, and thus feeling stronger by showing the other to be weaker.

I'll agree with this, too, and add that rape isn't always about power, but that is another issue.

While marital rape is a definate *issue* marriage doesn't imply that rape is acceptable. It's a social problem that has to be dealt with when a culture (that decries rape in general) looks the other way when it occurs within a sanctioned relationship.

Am I making sense? I've got a cold and my head is filled with goo. It's putting pressure on my thinking bits, I'm sure. Just let me know if I'm sounding nutty. Or gooey. Or chocolatey.

Jendaiya wrote:

While marital rape is a definate *issue* marriage doesn't imply that rape is acceptable. It's a social problem that has to be dealt with when a culture (that decries rape in general) looks the other way when it occurs within a sanctioned relationship.

But I think the point made was that it is only recently that the culture does in fact deal with it.  I think it's similar with war-crimes, as in soldier actually getting caught and charged for raping and killing local people (The War in Iraq is an example).  It was never considered right by rathional people, but it was so easy to get away with without consequence that it could practically be thought of as legal.

*reads linked article further*

...is still legal in several US states.

*more gloom*

They don't point that little fishhook out in Cosmo Bride.

Jendaiya wrote:

Just let me know if I'm sounding nutty. Or gooey. Or chocolatey.

You sound like...a snickers bar! I knew it! *begins slow process of devouring Jendaiya* Soon I will have ingested her greatness!