|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
posted April 24, 2013 04:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Could you be more specific?
Your response is just not any better than a blank post. "They can be fixed" means nothing, these issues exist now. Plus, you didn't answer or just conveniently ignored the part that not all countries can rely on immigration. By far.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 04:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Woman driving and homosexuality are illegal by Saudi law.
Yes, these are legal PRACTICES in Saudi Arabia and extreme examples because it's snowing Saudi Arabia and it is not a matter of semantics. What are you objecting to??? 
Quote:
The government can no longer legalize or criminalize things like same-sex marriage or polygamy. People are free to define marriage as they see fit. People will still sign legal contracts when they marry but these contracts won't, by law, be exclusive to marriage.
The government can't already criminalize if a gay couple calls themselves "married" among their friends. Now, they will have the legal coverage as any other couple too. The legal contracts are the institution of marriage ITSELF. Renaming it means only extra paper work for some poor city official. Everybody will still call that contract MARRIAGE. You are like those characters in bureaucracy satires who produce ten folders of paperwork for a public toilet to be functional.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 06:01 PM |
|
|
@gnomes2169
No, the Greeks did not have gay marriage nor did "hundreds of tribes."
What you are referring to is Greek pederasty. The sanctioned sex between young boys by older men. It was frowned upon if the boys were younger than 12 though there is no evidence of sanctions if they boy were younger. Institutional child molestation.
Greek pederasty was NOT considered to be marriage. The Greeks never defined marriage as anything but a man-woman thing though they were ok with men raping boys.
The North America Man Boy Love Association wants these kinds of relationships to be allowed. Since you equated this to marriage I assume you approve of it. I do not approve of child rape myself.
Greek art shows only homosexual relationships between men and boys, NEVER between men and men.
The Greeks also approved of bestiality. Do you want that included in marriage too?
So yeah, what the Greeks considered to be ok, rape of children and sex with animals we consider to be crimes today. At least most of us do.
Quote:
The myth of Ganymede’s abduction by Zeus was invoked as a precedent for the pederastic relationship, as Theognis asserts to a friend:
Quote:
There is some pleasure in loving a boy [paidophilein], since once in fact even the son of Cronus [that is, Zeus], king of immortals, fell in love with Ganymede, seized him, carried him off to Olympus, and made him divine, keeping the lovely bloom of boyhood [paideia]. So, don’t be astonished, Simonides, that I too have been revealed as captivated by love for a handsome boy.
Greek myths provide more than fifty examples of young men who were the lovers of gods. Pederastic love affairs are ascribed to Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Orpheus, Hercules, Dionysus, Hermes, and Pan. All the Olympian gods except Ares had these relationships, which are adduced by scholars to show that the specific customs of paiderastia originated in initiatory rituals.
Quote:
In this example, Christianity redefined the Judaic marriage to just one man and woman, where it was a polygamous system before (the Islamic faith did not make that shift). Why was this shift created? Because the religious leader/ prophet (a single man by the name of Jesus of Nazareth) decided to change its definition. That was a major controversy as well, since it went against more than a thousand years of tradition in Judaic faith. Hell, it went against the moral societal norm of the time... as in most "Developed" societies of the time still practiced polygamy or at least allowed it.
Jesus clarified God's intention and stated that showed from from the very beginning verses of the Bible that God's intention was one man and one woman. God created Adam and Eve. Not Adam, Eve, Rebecca, and Julia. Not Adam and Steve either.
Polygamy was allowed in the Old Covenant as a means of providing for women primarily. Not very many men ever had more than one wife in those days as they would not be able to provide for more than one. And the rabbis eventually "outlawed" polygamy.
But as far as American history, no marriage other than one man and one woman has ever been allowed. Certain territories that were primarily Mormon had to accept the one man one woman definition of marriage in order to be able to join the US as states.
Anyways, like I said, society should vote on such major changes rather than loons in charge dictating the changes.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 06:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The human species consists of two genders. Male and female. The male-female relationship is fundamental to humanity. It is the core around which society is built and the best place to raise a child.
So it seems ok since hundreds of years that there are single men who are NOT allowed to live this fundamental life (catholic priests?...), but it is wrong when TWO men don't live like that?
Double Standard as usual....
It is certainly false to say I have double standards, but what else would I expect when you comment on anything I say? It seems the only time you show up to contribute to the OSM is to fling some derrogatory statement my way.
First off, I'm not Catholic and don't approve of many Catholic doctrines. The forbidding priests to marry for instance. As I understand it the Catholics say that is a "disciplinary rule," not a matter of doctrine and so they can theoretically change that at any time.
Secondly everything I said in the post you quoted is true.
____________
Revelation
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 07:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But as far as American history, no marriage other than one man and one woman has ever been allowed. Certain territories that were primarily Mormon had to accept the one man one woman definition of marriage in order to be able to join the US as states.
Now this is much more accurate than the blanket statement that it has never existed anywhere. But Elodin, we are not talking about the US here, we are talking about France. The "Country of Love". Do you really think that when they were more pagan that French people didn't have gay people marriages?  [/joke]
But more seriously, the pagan ceremonies that the Greeks performed for legal or religious unions were different for each social class, occupation, religion and gender. So no, men and women did not have the same "Marriage" ritual in a homosexual relationship... they also did not have the same religious ceremony for a baker or a merchant as they did for a warrior or senator. The definitions of marriage at the time were rather diverse, honestly. Spartan warriors with no wife or children were allowed to be "Married" on the eve of battles to their comrades (likely because there was a chance that they would be killed in battle, so it streamlined things to have a living family member). In some cases, shepherds were allowed to marry goats. Literally.
The Greeks were (... and still are) weird man.
As to the question of whether I believe that bestiality should be legal... show me how a cat or dog can give consent. Otherwise, no. But comparing homosexuality (a heavily genetics-based sexual preference) with bestiality (a fetish spawned by **** if I know, but no genetic markers exist for it) is not the most accurate or scientific of ideas.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 07:04 PM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 07:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, the Greeks did not have gay marriage nor did "hundreds of tribes."
Ok, to be fair, the homo-erotic culture of Ancient Greece was indeed not exactly what you would define as gay marriage in the modern sense. They linked marriage to procreational purposes and considered homosexual love as something more Platonic. Note that, the Platonic love was something higher according to their understanding because it was above earthly pleasure. The point is, it was legitimate, legitimate under a totally different set of social codes and moral values, yet legitimate and open. It wasn't considered a "fetish" as you would call it.
Hundreds of tribes indeed had same-sex marriages, ironically some pre-agricultural tribes has much less taboos than their farmer grand children.
Quote:
Polygamy was allowed in the Old Covenant as a means of providing for women primarily. Not very many men ever had more than one wife in those days as they would not be able to provide for more than one. And the rabbis eventually "outlawed" polygamy.
Totally speculative. We have the same revisionist Islamic theologians here who proclaim that in Islam you can marry four women because during those times war took all the men and it was a way of protecting the women who were left behind as widows etc etc. Funny though, all those speculations started AFTER monogamy became the norm. Nobody wrote that in 9th or 13th century. Monotheistic religions don't have the luxury of "circumstantial defense" because they claim to be the message of an omnipresent God who's message is beyond time and location.
Quote:
God created Adam and Eve. Not Adam, Eve, Rebecca, and Julia. Not Adam and Steve either.
That is your personal belief in a myth. It is totally irrelevant when it comes to defining secular laws. Everybody already stated it was wrong to try to change your religion's doctrine. We are discussing secular laws here, so please keep the sermons out of it.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 07:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As to the question of whether I believe that bestiality should be legal... show me how a cat or dog can give consent. Otherwise, no. But comparing homosexuality (a heavily genetics-based sexual preference) with bestiality (a fetish spawned by **** if I know, but no genetic markers exist for it) is not the most accurate or scientific of ideas.
Minor quip here, but just for the record, it's very likely (almost to the point of certainty) that genetic markers will be found concerning various fetishes at some point in the not-so-distant future. There are people that have sex with animals because they're desperate and then there are people that find it much more alluring than the average person. You need to be very careful about using genetics as a justification for social behavior, because people jumping on that train are going to find themselves in an awkward position in ~10-20 years.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 08:01 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 20:02, 24 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
they were ok with men raping boys.
No. They were ok with men having sex with boys. And actually these "boys" could be even 40 years old unless their "men" were older. Also, it wasn't only about having sex, but about being some kind of a "spiritual guide" to the younger one.
Quote:
Jesus clarified God's intention and stated that showed from from the very beginning verses of the Bible that God's intention was one man and one woman.
...and - according to Bible - they could be brother and sister. See Adam's sons and daughters. Why incest isn't legalised already?
Also, marriage was actually never meant to be a "love union" at the beginning. It did change, however, and having a house, children etc. isn't today as important and intimate relationship between spouses. So we shouldn't love each other if we don't want to be "stripped of freedom and morality", right?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 09:38 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 21:44, 24 Apr 2013.
|
Maybe in the future, when robots will become sentient, Sultan Artu, Elodin the 3rd,John van Gnomes, Emperor Blizzardson, The dark lord Jr.Corribus and Xenofex-Xenomorph and so on will discuss about the legalization of Robot marriage...
Of course that goes only if AIs dont firstly try to exterminate all Humans.
And then people will forget about gays and they everyone will laugh, and laugh and laugh...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0VMeJzsxIo
What I am trying to say is that once newer generations come, gay marriage will be a non issue. Again, I dont care.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 09:50 PM |
|
|
Silly Seraphim, we already have pleasure bots, and you can already marry them in Japan. And this is the point where I wish I was kidding...
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 09:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Maybe in the future, when robots will become sentient, Sultan Artu, Elodin the 3rd,John van Gnomes, Emperor Blizzardson, The dark lord Jr.Corribus and Xenofex-Xenomorph and so on will discuss about the legalization of Robot marriage...
Of course that goes only if AIs dont firstly try to exterminate all Humans.
And then people will forget about gays and they everyone will laugh, and laugh and laugh...
What I am trying to say is that once newer generations come, gay marriage will be a non issue. Again, I dont care.
I don't think "robots" (or cyborgs or TTK34stkNR45099 model of anything) will ever try to take over. Because to try to take over is about DESIRE not more developed AI. You need hormones and hunger for that. Isaac Asimov, that mothersnower genius, was the only author who ever wrote a convincing story about AI trying to take over. (At least among the ones I read.) In iRobot, the machines tried to take over simply because they were following an instruction coded in them by humans. They couldn't care less about getting married.
Deeper Blue doesn't want to be the World Chess Champion.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 10:08 PM |
|
|
Gnomes:
Quote:
As to the question of whether I believe that bestiality should be legal... show me how a cat or dog can give consent.
Do animals consent to being eaten or put into cages? If not, why should having sex with them be treated differently?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 10:13 PM |
|
|
|
We already did that one, didn't we. I suggest giving link to topic if you want to continue down that road. Or else we'll write stuff but it will be deleted eventually and that's annoying.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 10:58 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:59, 24 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
these issues exist now
Sure, I'll discuss issues that are strenghtened by certain immigration but that's another thread. Which countries can not rely on immigration?
artu: You wrote about laws being embedded in tradition and social patterns. My opinion is that laws should have little to do with tradition so I gave you examples of laws that are strongly influenced by tradition such as those in Saudi Arabia.
Today three gay men can't get married anywhere in the US afaik. If government stayed out of marriage and if those legal contracts could be signed by more than two people, this would be possible.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 11:30 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:55, 24 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
artu: You wrote about laws being embedded in tradition and social patterns. My opinion is that laws should have little to do with tradition so I gave you examples of laws that are strongly influenced by tradition such as those in Saudi Arabia.
Yes and my objection is based on the opinion that new laws can be motivating to get rid of archaic tradition but when your solution is to rename an institution without changing anything you are simply deluding yourself. You take a concept, that is partly about legal rights, partly about social norms, partly about people's psychological motivations and you try to solve the issue by atomizing it into "let marriage be like a birthday party and legal coverage be like a tenancy contract." That's why I said laws are embedded in tradition: They can't be atomized as easily as that.
I really hate to play the age card, it's usually not a decent thing to do, but in this specific situation I say you may look at your 17 year old stance, exactly like you look at your 12 year old stance now.
(To pick Saudi Arabia when the frame is laws in countries that recognize the rights of the individual is slightly out of context, not totally but slightly IMO, and more importantly marriage as of now is not as obsolete as not letting women drive)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 11:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You take a concept, that is partly about legal rights, partly about social norms, partly about people's psychological motivations and you try to solve the issue by atomizing it into "let marriage be like a birthday party and legal coverage be like a tenancy contract." That's why I said laws are embedded in tradition: They can't be atomized as easily as that.
And why not?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 11:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You take a concept, that is partly about legal rights, partly about social norms, partly about people's psychological motivations and you try to solve the issue by atomizing it into "let marriage be like a birthday party and legal coverage be like a tenancy contract." That's why I said laws are embedded in tradition: They can't be atomized as easily as that.
And why not?
First of all, it will backfire. Law is philosophical at times but it is not philosophy. Wars start when you don't seek consensus.
And even if that wasn't true, the whole thing is about what to name things when you look at it as shallow as that. What if there was another word which meant "married legally but not in the traditional sense"? Would that word change anything? Well, maybe we would be more flexible in this debate, but would it change the actual contradiction of new social norm versus old tradition?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 12:04 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 00:07, 25 Apr 2013.
|
New social norms vs old traditions?
Nothing is preventing an old school man & woman marriage. Associated legal contracts are just no longer exclusive to marriage. That breaks the tradition?
One should also consider that in many countries with a secular majority, more than half of all kids are born outside of a marriage.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 12:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Wars start when you don't seek consensus.
So instead people who are wrong should be appeased? No, we should be trying to convince them as much as we can, and, failing that, we should ignore them.
And if the question is about new social norm vs old tradition, that is not the same as the debate about same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples who live together in committed relationships already exist - it's already a norm. Marriages of equality (which are already not traditional) are even more common, and yet conservatives usually don't argue that women not being subservient to men is a challenge to traditional marriage. Conservatives may ask what they should do about changing norms, but that is separate from changing the law to let same-sex couples who live the same way as opposite-sex couples to receive the same recognition and be free to make the same contract with each other. This doesn't even mean that conservatives have to approve of homosexuality - there's nothing contradictory about opposing a practice while supporting it being legal.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
