|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted July 04, 2013 11:26 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:27, 04 Jul 2013.
|
The human race is composed of man and woman.
The most fundamental society is a man and a woman. This is the base family unit for the human species. This is the natural base for raising children. Society has recognized the importance of the man-woman relationship to the human race by granting marriage certain benefits and imposing certain responsibilities.
"Alternative" relationships may be important to certain individuals but they are not central to society in the way that the male-female relationship is. There is no reason to call alternative relationships the same thing as the prime relationship (male-female) that is the bedrock of society. Marriages strengthen the relationships between the man and woman, between parents and children, extended family relationships, and wider community relationships. This strengthens society.
The male-female relationship of marriage is also the best place for children to be guided into becoming mature, honest and trustworthy members of society. Children need the influence of both genders in parenthood. They need a mother and a father. Both genders are equally important but different in a race that is composed of man and woman.
A redefinition of marriage is a radical redefinition of human relationships. What it means to be a husband, wife, father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister. Neither human relationships nor marriage is genderless. And the human body is certainly not genderless.
Women bring something to marriage that men can't bring. Men bring something that women can't bring. Women are not irrelevant. Men are not irrelevant.
And of course the state needs future citizens. the male-female relationship provides those citizens and nurtures them into adulthood.
Man-woman marriage benefits society. Religion and society at large has every reason to encourage the flourishing of the man-woman relationship and polices that are detrimental to it should be abandoned. The traditional family is the heart of society.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 11:33 PM |
|
|
You still aren't explaining why polygamous family isn't the traditional one and why shouldn't it be legal if we're talking about biological stuff...
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 11:51 PM |
|
|
Because, according to God's law, a man can have only one wife at a time. Anyone who claims otherwise is a false prophet.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 05, 2013 12:11 AM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 00:19, 05 Jul 2013.
|
The same God said man is allowed to have more than one wife, but it is believed only by Muslims. Anyhow, religion isn't a good argument in that case since there are plenty of them and each is supposed to be the true one. 
EDIT: As a nontheist, I can't really argue on such level, sorry.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted July 05, 2013 12:15 AM |
|
|
I've talked before about the muslims, all they did was copy Judaism and Christianity and add some of their own laws, they are a false religion. You can't get any more fake than the muslims.
[/off topic]
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 05, 2013 12:22 AM |
|
|
|
but didn't christians copy pagans? i mean, there are pagan rituals in christianity. drink this wine, it is my blood, etc, etc...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 05, 2013 12:24 AM |
|
|
Elodin:
Quote:
This is the base family unit for the human species.
A sperm and egg are necessary to produce a zygote, and men are biologically equipped to produce sperm and women to produce eggs. But why does that mean that a man and a woman should raise the child? Why not two men, or two women, or three men and a woman? If anything, more parents means more providers, so the child can get more care.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted July 05, 2013 12:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
but didn't christians copy pagans? i mean, there are pagan rituals in christianity. drink this wine, it is my blood, etc, etc...
lies, Christianity didn't copy anyone.
clicky
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 05, 2013 01:08 AM |
|
|
|
brother, that link speaks of deities. i'm talking merely of ritual.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 05, 2013 02:00 AM |
|
|
I thought we live in somehow secular world. Why do we have to talk here about Christianity or Islam being invalid or not? Does it somehow affect gay marriage being OBJECTIVELY good or bad? Has God's presence suddenly became a fact if you're using it as an argument and continuing this offtopic right now?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 05, 2013 08:54 AM |
|
|
@ Elodin
If your points were valid, partnerships without children would cease to be marriages after a certain time or called differently and become a marriage later on when they had a child.
Conversely, there are enough ways for male/male and female/female pairs today to have a child, and the question would be whether, say, a female/female partnership, both having one natural child from a visit at the sperm bank be more of a marriage than a childless mixed couple.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 05, 2013 10:27 AM |
|
|
1- Polygamy is not specific to Islam even among Abrahamic religions, Judaism has it. So, the point is not only irrelevant (no one has to give a slightest damn to what your God says, just like you dont give a damn to Islam) but factually plain wrong and a perfect example of talking without minimum knowledge, ignorance.
2- As every reasonable person in the last two pages mentioned, this isnt about what is natural or theistic. This is about a social contract that humans define the frames of. It has been modified in the past many times, giving an example of your " ideal marriage" of man, woman and child is also irrelevant because no marrige is, and should be forced to be ideal.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 05, 2013 02:49 PM |
|
|
My 2 cents incoming.
As the late Heath Ledger in a purple suit said, "Let's wind the clock back a year." Let's start from the beginning.
The mechanics
Major changes instituted without direct consent by the common folk generally need something to legitimize them and, in the period before the democracy and human rights mythology (if you'll pardon the term), divine authority was the way to go. In time, legitimized changes become tradition, which is a powerful bond, because in order for something to become a tradition, it needs to have stood the test of time. The fear of the unknown stems from the fear of uncertainty; why take unnecessary risks when, under our tradition, we've existed and survived the tides of time successfully all these years?
It's alright, the changers say. Your fear is unwarranted, because we'll be under divine protection, and/or because we are ethically in the right (discontent for the previous state of affairs is a major plus here; those unsatisfied with their lot in the current system will join the new trend first, and then, if things go as planned, gradually, others will as well).
The history
Now, pretty much every culture in the world had some notion of marriage dating to pre-recorded history. Many of them instituted a submissive relation of woman as compared to man. A theory I ran across, which seems alright, is that one of the reasons for this was the regulation of access to women as communities grew and shaped up into something more orderly. What this was strengthened with was religion. This was all long before any of today's religions were around, so you can't be offended.
As we evolved culturally and ethically, marriage tradition became more sophisticated. Social status was always in the picture, but then there were arranged marriages, political alliances, changes in partner relations, obligatory religious ceremonies, conditions of divorce, even love here and there. For the last ten thousand years or so, marriages have pretty much been following and mirroring us as a society. If you need to assess the customs and values of a culture, is there a better way than taking a look at their marital laws?
Anyhow, with Christianity spreading as far as it did, the tradition became more powerful, bound not by a region but by a creed, a set of values which grew stronger and stronger as larger parts of the world bought into it. Eventually, empires and theocracies crumbled, revolutions ensued, countries came to be led by dictators tearing the whole structure of society apart, yet they held on to the monogamous codes which governed them for centuries. We are now a radically different folk than we were a thousand years ago; we've gone a long way in shaping up an advanced set of ethical values, or so we fondly believe, and we are proud as hell of it. But things change on. Panta rei, everything flows, and we have trouble seeing if particular pantas happen to rei where we'd like them to.
Wat do?
Having survived throughout this long, long chunk of time, and serving us well, it's understandable that people are reluctant to change some essential marital principles such as the obligatory difference in sex. Many people are not only uncertain about what they see as game-changing rules of this scale, but also feel a strong sense of identity with the current way of things, with some even feeling threatened by other, more... unwavering cultures. That aside, a glance at, for instance, the relationship between Americans and their Constitution illustrates my previous point about the sanctity of a worldly cause being no less powerful than that of a religion. Secularism, much like democracy, doesn't change things magically.
Same sex marriage, as seen by its proponents, is a continuation of the principles of liberty and equality postulated in the foundations of the modern world. Its opponents see it as a tool with which the natural order would be undermined and which could be misused for the worse of everyone. Our personal feelings aside, it's objectively a part of, if not evolution, then certainly mutation of society. It's liable for natural selection, not of genes, but of ideas. Time will tell if mankind evolves in that direction, or another one.
There is, however, an important thing to take into account.
Science!
Science! allows gay people to have kids. It allows people to change gender. It's the quantum physicist that jumps into the world of classical physics and starts turning constants into variables and generally making everyone feel a bit silly.
So now two chicks can have a kid for 15 000 euros, roughly 20 000 American dollars. People complain about the pricing. I didn't even know it was possible. At any rate, new objectives in the discussion are discovered. Should the state provide those?
Well, in my discussions with LGBT folks and their hetero auxiliaries, I learned that - generally - when I assume it's a mental thing they don't have a choice about, I'm screwed, and when I assume it's a lifestyle thing they do have a choice about, I'm just as screwed. Both sides generally erect a wall from which they launch sharp objects at me as soon as I ask them an honest question (for instance, "Yeah but... what if a gay couple doesn't force their sexuality on the adopted kid? What if they're, you know, reasonable people? Is it really better for the kid to stay at an orphanage? In Serbia?").
So what conclusions did I personally draw out of the whole affair?
1) There is no amount of reasonable discussion that can make the vanguard activists of both sides agree with each other. The differences are nestled in things too important personally for them. In the end, it'll be up to the neutrals, probably an outside entity such as the government, to say how things will be. I think the US (and, therefore, the rest of the West) is leaning heavily toward allowing it and it's just a matter of time. In Russia, China, the Muslim world and a few others, well, it's not gonna happen anytime soon. Might as well learn to deal with it.
2) Whether you call it marriage or a civil union is a matter of semantics on the same level as the Greek/Macedonian dispute over the country being called Macedonia or the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. I understand that it's important to people, but still think they're taking the whole thing a tad too seriously. At any rate, you can call the church a backwater thing and pour relentless scorn all over it, but, with all its faults, it can't go against the laws it holds sacred. Well, not officially. If its scriptures explicitly say that marriage is a thing between a man and a woman, there really is nothing anyone can do about it. You've got like 8000 denominations over there, anyway. There's got to be one that's alright with gay marriage. If all else fails, stop by Vegas and marry a helicopter or something.
3) When you adopt, you should have a social service watching over you to see if you're treating the kid right. If the same would apply to gay folks, then I believe they should be free to adopt. I heard arguments like the one about the kid being made fun of at school, and after thinking it over a bit, they're crap. I'm pretty sure that, 'til not too long ago, they used to make fun of you if your parents were black, as well. It's not your fault if other people can't raise their kids right.
4) Governmental provision of lab babies should probably depend, in light of current morality about providing taxpayer money, on whether homosexuality is a condition or a lifestyle. Seeing as characterizing it as a psychological barrier is frowned upon, I don't think people should pay up. No offense. Miraculous as conjuring up a baby is, it costs a lot and I'd rather see that money go toward a kid's heart transplant.
That about covers it all, right?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 05, 2013 03:29 PM |
|
|
Regarding the second point, it'd one thing if the (Catholic, for example) Church was a bunch of random bigots with no influence, but they're not. Not only are they opposed to homosexuality as private institutions (which they are required to do by Biblical teachings), but they also oppose the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. While it may do a religious person some good to join a church that doesn't condemn homosexuality (heretical as that church would be), that doesn't help as much as it could because the state still won't give a marriage license to him.
As for the point about civil unions, the most reliable way to prevent discrimination on the part of the state is to call all marriages "civil unions" in the law, and leave it to churches and other private entities to decide if any particular civil union arrangement is marriage. If religious conservatives claim that marriage is a religious function, what's the state doing performing marriages?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted July 06, 2013 01:20 AM |
|
|
No religion has the right to label a unity between anyone. If your gay and want to be married legally go to the court house in a state in which it is legal. The heads of all churches have the right to decide if they want to marry a homosexual couple or even a couple that has conceived prior to marriage.
To the above comment on Catholics, who gives two **ts what the Catholics think when it comes to right and wrong in marriage. They unnaturally prevent their "leaders" from engaging in sex and then cover it up when they find the alter boys posing for pictures on their laps like a bad Santa movie. "Want a candy cane little boy?"
Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, period. God's law does not come into play in that. I don't care if they marry. Marriage is not what it once was and never will be so let it be perverted even that much more as civilization for some is evolving and for some is on the brink of its own demise.
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 06, 2013 08:42 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 08:46, 06 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
but didn't christians copy pagans? i mean, there are pagan rituals in christianity. drink this wine, it is my blood, etc, etc...
[/off topic]
Nope. Jesus when he created the communion service was basing it on the Jewish Passover. He was saying that he is the true Passover sacrifice that the Passover meal points to.
Quote:
A sperm and egg are necessary to produce a zygote, and men are biologically equipped to produce sperm and women to produce eggs. But why does that mean that a man and a woman should raise the child? Why not two men, or two women, or three men and a woman? If anything, more parents means more providers, so the child can get more care.
I would again point to design, by nature or by God. Man + woman create child. That is the natural family. Mankind is two genders and parenting by both genders is the design. Fatherhood is more than being a sperm donor. Motherhood is more than carrying and giving birth to the child.
Quote:
If your points were valid, partnerships without children would cease to be marriages after a certain time or called differently and become a marriage later on when they had a child.
Nope. They still reflect the unity of two genders that is humanity. Man-man and woman-woman is unnatural. Man-woman is clearly the natural pairing.
Quote:
Conversely, there are enough ways for male/male and female/female pairs today to have a child, and the question would be whether, say, a female/female partnership, both having one natural child from a visit at the sperm bank be more of a marriage than a childless mixed couple.
Of course a lesbian marriage with a child would not be more of a marriage than a childless man-woman couple. The man-woman couple reflects who humanity is. Mankind is male-female. Mankind is not male-male or female-female. Both genders are necessary to humanity and to the unity of marriage that reflects the human race.
Quote:
1- Polygamy is not specific to Islam even among Abrahamic religions, Judaism has it. So, the point is not only irrelevant (no one has to give a slightest damn to what your God says, just like you dont give a damn to Islam) but factually plain wrong and a perfect example of talking without minimum knowledge, ignorance.
The ignorant beliefs of fanatics hostile to religion are no more valid than the beliefs of theists. Everyone is supposed to have a voice in a democracy.
Quote:
Regarding the second point, it'd one thing if the (Catholic, for example) Church was a bunch of random bigots with no influence, but they're not.
People who say gay sex is sin are not bigots.
Quote:
Not only are they opposed to homosexuality as private institutions (which they are required to do by Biblical teachings), but they also oppose the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Actually, they say gay sex is sin but they don't try to stop anyone from having gay sex in their bedroom any more than they try to stop anyone from drinking too much in their living room.
Marriage has a particular meaning and a small fraction of people should not be allowed to turn marriage on its head and redefine it.
Marriage has always in every culture been a man-woman thing.
Quote:
While it may do a religious person some good to join a church that doesn't condemn homosexuality (heretical as that church would be), that doesn't help as much as it could because the state still won't give a marriage license to him.
Christian churches say gay sex is sin but don't condemn homosexuals. there is a difference in condemning a behavior and condemning a person.
Quote:
As for the point about civil unions, the most reliable way to prevent discrimination on the part of the state is to call all marriages "civil unions" in the law, and leave it to churches and other private entities to decide if any particular civil union arrangement is marriage. If religious conservatives claim that marriage is a religious function, what's the state doing performing marriages?
Why should different things that are similar be called the same names? Man-woman unions provide many benefits to society that gay unions would not.
Quote:
No religion has the right to label a unity between anyone.
Sure they do, just as atheists have a right to do the same. And theists have every bit as much right to a voice in society as atheists.
Quote:
To the above comment on Catholics, who gives two **ts what the Catholics think when it comes to right and wrong in marriage. They unnaturally prevent their "leaders" from engaging in sex and then cover it up when they find the alter boys posing for pictures on their laps like a bad Santa movie. "Want a candy cane little boy?"
I think you are being unfair to Catholicism. They preach gay sex is sin and that pedophilia is sin. Maybe you should condemn the gay men that molest boys.
Quote:
Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, period.
You have a right to your erroneous opinion. If I had asked my wife "Will you enter into a legal contract with me to be my sex partner?" I'd not be married today. Marriage has always had a religious significance to it, particularly in the West and in the US.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 06, 2013 10:00 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:47, 06 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
The ignorant beliefs of fanatics hostile to religion are no more valid than the beliefs of theists. Everyone is supposed to have a voice in a democracy.
First of all, what belief? Judaism has polygamy, there is a continuity between the Abrahamic religions, offically approved by the successors (naturally denied by the previous religion in both cases of Judaism denying Christianity and Christianity, Islam), and if you take a broader, anthropological perspective, there is a continuity between polytheism and monotheism. Nothing pops out of the blue, it's a historical process. These are not beliefs, they are objective research that are based on anthropological, linguistic, comperative mythological studies. All social sciences involving the history of religions point out to that. The continuity is not only based on rituals but also myths (for example the story of the flood is found on Sumerian tablets)and theology (god being a father figure etc etc.)
It is YOUR stance that is the subjective belief, not the studies of social sciences. Unlike you, they don't conclude things that lead them to what they already belive in, they just follow evidence. And sorry, kingdavid.com(!) and similiar sites are not considered objective sources.
Second of all, we are not talking about you having a voice or not and nobody is trying to shut you up. You are trying to restrict some people a right basically because it contradicts with your belief. Nobody is trying to modify the wedding ceremony of your church, these have been already discussed and resolved, so I really don't understand what your problem is actually.
Quote:
If I had asked my wife "Will you enter into a legal contract with me to be my sex partner?" I'd not be married today. Marriage has always had a religious significance to it, particularly in the West and in the US.
Not every aspect that is romantic and emotional is necessarily religious, non-religious people fall in love, too. Yet, not everybody marries out of love either. Also, sometimes people sugarcoat things, one may be having sex with his wife because they both want children but you still don't say "I am going to fertilize you now, so get undressed" do you? And for the last but not the least, what on earth makes you think it is the institution of marriage's duty to represent the human race, what is this, the United Nations:
Quote:
The man-woman couple reflects who humanity is. Mankind is male-female. Mankind is not male-male or female-female. Both genders are necessary to humanity and to the unity of marriage that reflects the human race.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 06, 2013 10:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
"I am going to fertilize you now, so get undressed"
"I see you are releasing dihydrogen monoxide and natrium chloride from your tear ducts, my partner in union. Is there something that caused chemical imbalance which may have caused you to be unhappy?"
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2013 04:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I would again point to design, by nature or by God. Man + woman create child. That is the natural family.
And I would again point out that we are not "designed" as simple as you think we are. Please read e.g. my posts again - this "natural" family, same as marriage, is OUR idea, not nature's.
Quote:
Man-man and woman-woman is unnatural.
Say that to gay penguins...
Quote:
Mankind is male-female. Mankind is not male-male or female-female.
It's YOUR statement and you give us no argument for that. For me mankind is mankind, not some male-female garbage, and let people live as they want, that is if they don't harm each other. It's not like we will die because of them anyway, so why do you care?
Quote:
Both genders are necessary to humanity and to the unity of marriage that reflects the human race.
Both genders necessary - true. Reflecting the human race by marriage - not really. Monogamous marriage is not the only one.
Quote:
Marriage has a particular meaning
...given by some people.
Quote:
Marriage has always in every culture been a man-woman thing.
Nope. It also was man-woman-woman, or woman-man-man-man, or man-woman-bunch of lovers, or anything else. And believe me - these kind of marriages were here waaay before Church's definition of marriage. So, this "particular meaning" is changing with time, and your point is irrevelant.
Quote:
Christian churches say gay sex is sin but don't condemn homosexuals.
mvassilev actually said "homosexuality", not "homosexuals". Read carefully before you respond, please.
Quote:
Why should different things that are similar be called the same names?
Because they are the same names, but are a little bit different. It's like a difference between basketball and soccer ball - they are different of course, but still they both are balls.
Quote:
Sure they do, just as atheists have a right to do the same.
So you want to legalize "theistic marriage" and "atheistic marriage" as two different things?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2013 06:34 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
Quote:
I would again point to design, by nature or by God. Man + woman create child. That is the natural family. Mankind is two genders and parenting by both genders is the design. Fatherhood is more than being a sperm donor. Motherhood is more than carrying and giving birth to the child.
"Natural design" is a misnomer, since nature doesn't design anything. It is more accurate to talk of traits that are successful in reproducing themselves. As for the other points, there is biological parenthood, which requires a sperm and egg (which, for now, can only be gotten from a man and a woman), and then there is social parenthood, which require caring and love but not necessary from two parents of opposite sexes.Quote:
Man-woman unions provide many benefits to society that gay unions would not.
What benefits are these? By the way, giving tax benefits to married couples discriminates against singles.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
