| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Snow Dog 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
 Posted: April 17 2012 at 05:13 |
 topographicbroadways wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Textbook wrote:
Did he just try to give us the etymology of the word matrimony as a reason why we can't now revise its definition?
In the words of bugs bunny, what a maroon.
|
The etymology is very important in this case, because our law is based in the Justinian Code and the Twelve Tables that defines marriage as the institution to protect the woman.
Matris: Mother Munium: Care
The word defines the institution better than a thousand words.
You can check the Twelve Tables and the Justinian Code.
Being a Latin country with a Latin legal inheritance, most of the legal definitions are directly related to etymology, that's why we study Latin in order to understand better the basis of our law.
Call me a maroon as many times as you want, it's obvious you don't understand our sytem at all and the relation it has with the etymology of the institutions.
As Don Quixote said...
Let the dogs bark Sancho, it's a sign that we keep advancing .
Iván
|
|
Sounds like a good reason to me. What's in a name anyway? A civil partnership is marriage in all but name.
|
|
|
 |
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: April 17 2012 at 04:51 |
Textbook wrote:
I didn't say it was necessary to throw the past in the trash, my meaning was that if something needs to be changed, change it.
Ivan: Yeah I know executing women for being witches is a bit silly but it was part of our legal system in the past so we should still do it today. |
The UK repealed witchcraft laws in 1951 a mere 216 years after it was created and the last woman tried for witchcraft was Helen Duncan in 1944 - she was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment. In terms of history that was a pretty recent change in law. Homosexuality was decriminalised in the UK in 1967, it was another 36 years before homosexual sex (and anal sex between heterosexuals) was fully decriminalised. Gay marriage is another very recent change in UK law, and that is a civil marriage recognised only through law. Again, in terms of history they were all recent changes in law and an indication that laws do not change overnight even in our statute/common law system - it took an Act of Parliment to change the law.
|
|
What?
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: April 17 2012 at 03:46 |
I didn't say it was necessary to throw the past in the trash, my meaning was that if something needs to be changed, change it. Ivan: Yeah I know executing women for being witches is a bit silly but it was part of our legal system in the past so we should still do it today.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: April 17 2012 at 03:37 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Textbook wrote:
What was done in the past and why is important/interesting in allowing us to understand our world but when it comes to what we should be doing and what we want to do now, we should not be afraid to throw the past in the trash if necessary. So the Europeans and the Spanish and the Romans may have done such and such because such and such, but if we have different values and beliefs from them, why should we imitate them? We can surely build on or edit what they did. |
We don't believe it's necessary to throw all the past to the trash, we are not USA or Europe, we have our own legal system, ideas that have their roots in other systems, but adapted to our identity. |
I don't think that many people appreciate that the legal systems used in Latin America and (most of) Europe has fundametally different roots to the legal systems used in the (old) Common Wealth (including UK, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, India, S.Africa etc), and that they are not divided on religious grounds (i.e. catholic vs. protestant) .. common law predates the Reformation by several hundred years.
|
|
What?
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: April 17 2012 at 03:37 |
So Ivan, barren women can't get married? And secondly, Don Quixote was delusional but I guess that might be apt given your magical sky friend...
|
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67407
|
Posted: April 17 2012 at 02:03 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Also in our law (And in all Roman law), the essence of the marriage is at least the possibility of procreation (Not religious, legal) |
So castration implies divorce? How is the possibility of procreation monitored during marriage? What about elderly women?
|
|
topographicbroadways
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5575
|
Posted: April 17 2012 at 00:52 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Textbook wrote:
Did he just try to give us the etymology of the word matrimony as a reason why we can't now revise its definition?
In the words of bugs bunny, what a maroon.
|
The etymology is very important in this case, because our law is based in the Justinian Code and the Twelve Tables that defines marriage as the institution to protect the woman.
Matris: Mother Munium: Care
The word defines the institution better than a thousand words.
You can check the Twelve Tables and the Justinian Code.
Being a Latin country with a Latin legal inheritance, most of the legal definitions are directly related to etymology, that's why we study Latin in order to understand better the basis of our law.
Call me a maroon as many times as you want, it's obvious you don't understand our sytem at all and the relation it has with the etymology of the institutions.
As Don Quixote said...
Let the dogs bark Sancho, it's a sign that we keep advancing .
Iván
|
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: April 17 2012 at 00:43 |
The T wrote:
Textbook wrote:
OK, so what is blue?Or do you think that needs its own thread? BTW, read it and weep. Title page of first edition, says Quixote.
|
Good point. But the usage of the "x" in Spanish (castellano is the actual name of the language) has disappeared and replaced by the "J". But I'll take your explanation.
|
As a fact this is written in archaic Spanish (plus probably some printing problems specially in the low case s and the lack of accents)
You can see that they use the capital V instead of the U and they use the N instead of the Ñ.
You are right T, in Spanish actually is Don Quijote but in English they still use the name Quixote.
Iván
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: April 17 2012 at 00:08 |
Textbook wrote:
OK, so what is blue?Or do you think that needs its own thread? BTW, read it and weep. Title page of first edition, says Quixote.
|
Good point. But the usage of the "x" in Spanish (castellano is the actual name of the language) has disappeared and replaced by the "J". But I'll take your explanation.
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: April 17 2012 at 00:01 |
Textbook wrote:
What was done in the past and why is important/interesting in allowing us to understand our world but when it comes to what we should be doing and what we want to do now, we should not be afraid to throw the past in the trash if necessary. So the Europeans and the Spanish and the Romans may have done such and such because such and such, but if we have different values and beliefs from them, why should we imitate them? We can surely build on or edit what they did. |
We don't believe it's necessary to throw all the past to the trash, we are not USA or Europe, we have our own legal system, ideas that have their roots in other systems, but adapted to our identity.
TextbookTop literary tip: Likening yourself to Don Quixote is very amusing, for your opponents. I'm not quite sure you understood the nature of the character.[/QUOTE wrote:
It's obvious for me that you are not quite sure of many things, but you always believe you are.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melga |
It's obvious for me that you are not quite sure of many things, but you always believe you are.
Iván
Ivan_Melgar_M - April 17 2012 at 00:05
|
|
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: April 16 2012 at 23:41 |
OK, so what is blue?
Or do you think that needs its own thread?
BTW, read it and weep. Title page of first edition, says Quixote.
Edited by Textbook - April 16 2012 at 23:42
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: April 16 2012 at 23:38 |
It's Don Quijote, not Quixote, please.
I guess if we changed the damn word and instead of marriage people used "cropjukatreacea" or whatever new word, the etymology wouldn't matter anymore. But it's somewhat true that if you're going to call something blue, you better understand what the hell blue is in the first place
|
|
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: April 16 2012 at 23:30 |
What was done in the past and why is important/interesting in allowing us to understand our world but when it comes to what we should be doing and what we want to do now, we should not be afraid to throw the past in the trash if necessary. So the Europeans and the Spanish and the Romans may have done such and such because such and such, but if we have different values and beliefs from them, why should we imitate them? We can surely build on or edit what they did. Top literary tip: Likening yourself to Don Quixote is very amusing, for your opponents. I'm not quite sure you understood the nature of the character.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: April 16 2012 at 22:57 |
Textbook wrote:
Did he just try to give us the etymology of the word matrimony as a reason why we can't now revise its definition?
In the words of bugs bunny, what a maroon.
|
The etymology is very important in this case, because our law is based in the Justinian Code and the Twelve Tables that defines marriage as the institution to protect the woman.
Matris: Mother Munium: Care
The word defines the institution better than a thousand words.
You can check the Twelve Tables and the Justinian Code.
Being a Latin country with a Latin legal inheritance, most of the legal definitions are directly related to etymology, that's why we study Latin in order to understand better the basis of our law.
Call me a maroon as many times as you want, it's obvious you don't understand our sytem at all and the relation it has with the etymology of the institutions.
As Don Quixote said...
Let the dogs bark Sancho, it's a sign that we keep advancing .
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 16 2012 at 23:12
|
|
|
|
Alitare
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595
|
Posted: April 16 2012 at 21:15 |
No, I think he was describing the history of the law (which so happens to be etymologically connected). I think you're misunderstanding him and being awfully petty about it. I don't normally side with Ivan, and I don't now, but I do think you have to realise the types of communication barriers we're all dealing with here. This is a multicultural/multi-national forum. This is a text-based conversation to begin with. That's two strikes. Hell, any discussion we try to have is going to be flooded with miscommunications, confusions, minced words, and improperly implied/inferred sentiments.
Now that I've espoused myself to the voice of reason, I'll close by quoting a philosophy that is quite dear to me.
I will not eat green eggs and ham. I will not eat them, Sam I Am.
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: April 16 2012 at 21:06 |
Did he just try to give us the etymology of the word matrimony as a reason why we can't now revise its definition?
In the words of bugs bunny, what a maroon.
|
|
topographicbroadways
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5575
|
Posted: April 16 2012 at 20:22 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Textbook wrote:
Ivan: OK, so what's the basis for not altering the definition of marriage?
IS IT BY ANY CHANCE RELIGIOUS
|
Our definition of marriage (Matrimonio) is based in Roman Law (Before Christ just in case) and it's defines as
"matris munium"
Matris = Mother Munium: Care
In other words care of the mother
Also in our law (And in all Roman law), the essence of the marriage is at least the possibility of procreation (Not religious, legal)
Thisnis our civil and legal tradition, and I believe in it.
Again, if it was only because a religious issue, I wouldn't care, because the catholic Church doesn't accept the effects of Civil Marriage, so wouldn't affect the religious autonomy.
But, if our law changes the terms, I will have to accept them, but I'm sure it won't happen in an immediate future.
Iván
|
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: April 16 2012 at 18:37 |
Just some biology to mess with y'all minds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65261
|
Posted: April 16 2012 at 18:23 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
^I don't think there's anything in that statement to upset atheists. |
Agreed, nor that would upset cosmogonists.
|
|
catfood03
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 24 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785
|
Posted: April 16 2012 at 18:12 |
|
I'm late to the party, but I'm glad to read that many of you on this site are sensible people.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Your thoughts on gay rights?
