Weeeeell if someone I consider close eats donuts right next to me despite knowing I'm on a diet... I'm not going to react as viciously as the one bitch who tried to slap my croissant out of my hand because she was jogging and I was "skinny and nagging her", but my inner demons might take the power.
I mean people can marry whichever consenting adult they want as far as I'm (not) concerned, but this particular comparison doesn't really work.
Without touching on the rightness/wrongness of this whole can of worms
.
this argument is ignoring the fact that a lot of marriage used to be (and often still is) tied extremely closely to religion and often involved making a vow before a specific religion's God, usually with a priest/preacher/whatever, and often in a church or other location considered spiritual
.
Considering people get pissed over cultural appropriation left right and centre these days it doesn't seem like it would be that far a stretch to see why people might get upset over what they perceive as disrespecting their traditions/religion etc.
.
But, again, this isn't meant to be an opinion one way or the other. Not supporting any side with this, and no I will not fight you irl. This is Just an observation which is meant to be neutral, and if you're not reading it that way then try once more, without feeling.
Marriage can be associated with religion (and often is) but in the US (and I suspect many other countries) it is also a legal contract.
That’s where it gets sticky, because it’s fair to say ‘ this religious organization doesn’t approve of that marriage so you can’t do that here.’ But, where legal issues regarding property, beneficiary, health insurance and taxes are concerned, this is not a religious issue. Therefore the marriage contract is not a religious issue.
It used to be fairly symbiotic where it was all tied together. Prior to that it was mostly attached to religion and a lot of the religious aspects are still added into and used to represent modern weddings, which is part of where things get hairy.
.
Religious people would have a far weaker leg to stand on if two people just said "I'm going to sign a contract that says I own half of their stuff and they Own half of mine" or something similar.
.
As it is, it is again often done in a church (or similar place of religious worship), there's often passages from bibles read (not sure about muslim/hindu etc ceremonies) and so on.
.
Additionally, for some bizarre reason, people often feel obligated to force people with religious backgrounds to perform services for them (such as the marriage ceremony itself, or simply baking a cake). Which seems rather hypocritical and also strange (why would you want a cake baked by someone you hate?).
Agree or disagree it's not cut and dry from either standpoint. I was just mentioning some of the other perspective.
.
To a lot of religious people it would be less like being mad that someone is eating a donut while you're on a diet and more akin to find someone licking all the icing off the donut you made.
Black and white, a marriage between two people that aren’t in some way related to you doesn’t involve you. The notion that the marriage of two individuals unrelated to you is somehow ruining something of yours (ie your cake/doughnut) suggests that YOU (hypothetical you) are someone more important or meaningful than THEM. It’s their cake, and if they want to lick all the icing off it, it’s their prerogative, but that doesn’t ruin your cake by proxy.
No, it’s really not like licking someone else’s food. Because you said it yourself, marriage is present in many religions. No one religion can claim the right to lord over all marriage. Might be different if we were talking about rituals specific to one religion. But marriage is not specific and it has legal ramifications.
We... literally were talking about specific rituals to specific religions. Just because I specified that there are many examples of religious appropriation in weddings doesn't make it any less valid. That's like saying one native tribe can't get upset at being turned into a football logo because there are MANY different native tribes in the world.
.
And regardless of culture almost every example of marriage I can see in the modern sense was intrinsically tied to religion.
.
Also as I said - if people avoided any of the symbolism and traditions passed down from religious weddings and simply kept it all legal - lines on a page - people would likely be far less upset overall. I'm not sure why you're arguing this aspect when I never disagreed with it.
.
But to reiterate- Just because MANY people have donuts of varying flavours and you licked two or three of them, that doesn't make the first donut any less licked.
Unless you're going to tell me that cultural appropriation can't be applied to religions now. Or you can only get offended when it's applied to things other than religion
.
Which is honestly exactly what I expected would happen eventually when I made the original comment
Nope. I have no comments on religious/cultural appropriation.
The sign says marriage. Not Christian marriage or Muslim marriage or Jewish marriage. It says marriage.
And the perspective you’re representing is the same perspective that makes people feel like they have the right to deny other people marriage strictly in the legal sense.
If everyone is allowed to take a donut and I choose to lick the frosting off mine it still has no impact on your donut that you choose to eat in what you consider the proper way.
I'm not entirely certain if there's something you're not understanding or if you're deliberately ignoring parts of what I've said in favour of making your argument. And you are choosing to ignore the appropriation element which was the entire premise from the start.
.
Allow me to simplify:
Donut = marriage as an exclusively Legal contract.
Frosting = churches, priests/etc, biblical passages, mendi, chupah, baptisms, vows before respective gods.. I could go on for ages.
.
You sign a contract that's one thing.
.
You take aspects of someone religion and incorporate it into whatever you want - against their express wishes - and yeah, that has as much impact on them as any other form of appropriation. Unless you are, again, arguing that religious people are not allowed to feel protective of their culture in the same manner others are.
And for the record - yes, I was pointing out their potential perspective. I literally stated that multiple times. Please don't be so eager to argue your own perspective you ignore the basic premise behind what started this topic in the first place.
.
I'm not willing to waste more time on debating this issue (never wanted to to begin with).
.
You've made your perspective clear. Presumably I've made this one clear. Simply have to accept that never the twain shall meet in this circumstance
I mean people can marry whichever consenting adult they want as far as I'm (not) concerned, but this particular comparison doesn't really work.
.
this argument is ignoring the fact that a lot of marriage used to be (and often still is) tied extremely closely to religion and often involved making a vow before a specific religion's God, usually with a priest/preacher/whatever, and often in a church or other location considered spiritual
.
Considering people get pissed over cultural appropriation left right and centre these days it doesn't seem like it would be that far a stretch to see why people might get upset over what they perceive as disrespecting their traditions/religion etc.
.
But, again, this isn't meant to be an opinion one way or the other. Not supporting any side with this, and no I will not fight you irl. This is Just an observation which is meant to be neutral, and if you're not reading it that way then try once more, without feeling.
That’s where it gets sticky, because it’s fair to say ‘ this religious organization doesn’t approve of that marriage so you can’t do that here.’ But, where legal issues regarding property, beneficiary, health insurance and taxes are concerned, this is not a religious issue. Therefore the marriage contract is not a religious issue.
.
Religious people would have a far weaker leg to stand on if two people just said "I'm going to sign a contract that says I own half of their stuff and they Own half of mine" or something similar.
.
As it is, it is again often done in a church (or similar place of religious worship), there's often passages from bibles read (not sure about muslim/hindu etc ceremonies) and so on.
.
Additionally, for some bizarre reason, people often feel obligated to force people with religious backgrounds to perform services for them (such as the marriage ceremony itself, or simply baking a cake). Which seems rather hypocritical and also strange (why would you want a cake baked by someone you hate?).
.
To a lot of religious people it would be less like being mad that someone is eating a donut while you're on a diet and more akin to find someone licking all the icing off the donut you made.
No, it’s really not like licking someone else’s food. Because you said it yourself, marriage is present in many religions. No one religion can claim the right to lord over all marriage. Might be different if we were talking about rituals specific to one religion. But marriage is not specific and it has legal ramifications.
.
And regardless of culture almost every example of marriage I can see in the modern sense was intrinsically tied to religion.
.
Also as I said - if people avoided any of the symbolism and traditions passed down from religious weddings and simply kept it all legal - lines on a page - people would likely be far less upset overall. I'm not sure why you're arguing this aspect when I never disagreed with it.
.
But to reiterate- Just because MANY people have donuts of varying flavours and you licked two or three of them, that doesn't make the first donut any less licked.
.
Which is honestly exactly what I expected would happen eventually when I made the original comment
The sign says marriage. Not Christian marriage or Muslim marriage or Jewish marriage. It says marriage.
And the perspective you’re representing is the same perspective that makes people feel like they have the right to deny other people marriage strictly in the legal sense.
If everyone is allowed to take a donut and I choose to lick the frosting off mine it still has no impact on your donut that you choose to eat in what you consider the proper way.
.
Allow me to simplify:
Donut = marriage as an exclusively Legal contract.
Frosting = churches, priests/etc, biblical passages, mendi, chupah, baptisms, vows before respective gods.. I could go on for ages.
.
You sign a contract that's one thing.
.
You take aspects of someone religion and incorporate it into whatever you want - against their express wishes - and yeah, that has as much impact on them as any other form of appropriation. Unless you are, again, arguing that religious people are not allowed to feel protective of their culture in the same manner others are.
.
I'm not willing to waste more time on debating this issue (never wanted to to begin with).
.
You've made your perspective clear. Presumably I've made this one clear. Simply have to accept that never the twain shall meet in this circumstance