Marriage Debate

Upchurch said:
Do you consider all historically successful and traditional moral values to be morally sound based entirely on their historical success and ..."traditional-ness"?
Click to expand...

No. I also reason through moral values as they are presented by various sources. My religious foundations are one. Philosophers outside my religion are others.

eta: I'm thinking of another historically successful and traditional moral value: slavery. Do you consider slavery a morally sound value?
Click to expand...

No, I don't.

You consider slavery a historically successful moral value? How so?
 
Huntster said:
No. I also reason through moral values as they are presented by various sources. My religious foundations are one. Philosophers outside my religion are others.
Click to expand...
So this issue doesn't have "nothing to do with religion", then?

What Philosophers outside of your religion?

Huntster said:
No, I don't.

You consider slavery a historically successful moral value? How so?
Click to expand...
Historically successful, yes. It has existed for the entirety of recorded human history and much of that was considered morally good. American slavery, for example, was justified because blacks were unable to take care of themselves, or so the argument went. They even used scriptural support from your religion.
 
Upchurch said:
So this issue doesn't have "nothing to do with religion", then?

What Philosophers outside of your religion?
Click to expand...

Aristotle, Socrates, Gautama, Sun Tzu, Laozi, Gandhi....................

Historically successful, yes. It has existed for the entirety of recorded human history and much of that was considered morally good. American slavery, for example, was justified because blacks were unable to take care of themselves, or so the argument went.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that slavery is ultimately destructive to a society. In the end, it isn't successful.

They even used scriptural support from your religion.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make it morally right or ultimately successful.
 
Huntster said:
Aristotle, Socrates, Gautama, Sun Tzu, Laozi, Gandhi....................
Click to expand...
As others have pointed out: huh?

Huntster said:
It seems to me that slavery is ultimately destructive to a society. In the end, it isn't successful.
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary, many a society was built on the back of slavery and/or near-slavery. Notable examples were the ancient Egyptians, the Greeks and Romans, and even the colonial and early US in the south. In the former two, it was not slavery that were the ultimate means of those societies' downfalls. You could make the case for the US South, but that's only one example.

Historically speaking, slavery has been an extremely successful social, economic, and moral strategy. That isn't to say that slavery is morally sound, but it points out that history and tradition are not a sound basis for morality.

Huntster said:
That doesn't make it morally right or ultimately successful.
Click to expand...
So, I'll ask again: What makes homosexuality and, specifically, gay marriage morally wrong?

And a follow up question: What differentiates the traditional moral value of slavery from the traditional moral value of being anti-gay?


edited to change "American" to "US" for clarity. I wasn't refering to South America, but rather the southern US states.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
I've read a little bit from all of them, and I don't recall the topic ever coming up. Not once.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that they hadn't written down anything about it. Huntster is playing a game where he simply wants to define where his general moral fiber comes from instead of his moral make-up for this specific issue. I think it's because he's ashamed to admit that it came from his religious background.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I'm sure that they hadn't written down anything about it. Huntster is playing a game where he simply wants to define where his general moral fiber comes from instead of his moral make-up for this specific issue. I think it's because he's ashamed to admit that it came from his religious background.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's at all ashamed of his religious background. Call it what you will--marriage as we know it goes back a long way.
 
Hardenbergh said:
I don't think he's at all ashamed of his religious background. Call it what you will--marriage as we know it goes back a long way.
Click to expand...

False. Completely false. Totatly, utterly fictitious. Monogamous marriage between equal partners with the same rights to seek divorce, the same property rights, and each able to retain power of attourney over themselves has been around less than one hundred years.

ETA: Technically, the ancient, pre-christian Irish had several different degrees of marriages, one of which resembled the modern institution of marriage.

http://www.irish-society.org/Hedgemaster Archives/brehon_laws.htm
Under Brehon Law women were equal to men with regard to education and property. After marriage, the woman was a partner with, and not the property of, her husband. She remained the sole owner of property that had been hers prior to marriage. Property jointly owned by her and her husband could not be sold without her approval and consent. A married woman retained the right to pursue a case at law as well as recover for debt in her own person. In certain cases of legal separation for good cause, the wife not only took with her all of the marriage portion and gifts, but an amount over and above that for damages.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Socrates struck me as almost certainly homosexual. However, we don't know about the sexual orientation of his wife.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
False. Completely false. Totatly, utterly fictitious. Monogamous marriage between equal partners with the same rights to seek divorce, the same property rights, and each able to retain power of attourney over themselves has been around less than one hundred years.
Click to expand...

A hundred years is still a long time. When I said "as we know it", I was talking about marriage as being between one man and one woman.

ETA: Technically, the ancient, pre-christian Irish had several different degrees of marriages, one of which resembled the modern institution of marriage.
Click to expand...
http://www.irish-society.org/Hedgemaster Archives/brehon_laws.htm

I know very little about the "ancient, pre-Christian Irish."
 
Yep, a hundred years ago, we didn't have a computer to send letters to grandma on. This is outside of our experience and tradition, and therefore we should try to pass a constitutional amendment to keep from sending email to grandma....


Sorry, couldn't help myself....
 
bluess said:
Yep, a hundred years ago, we didn't have a computer to send letters to grandma on. This is outside of our experience and tradition, and therefore we should try to pass a constitutional amendment to keep from sending email to grandma....
Click to expand...
That's what I'm sayin'. History and tradition are not a sound basis for moral decisions.

eta: that is to say, not a sound basis, in and of themselves, for moral decisions.

bluess said:
Sorry, couldn't help myself....
Click to expand...
I dunno. I thought it was very helpful.
 
Last edited:
Hardenbergh said:
A hundred years is still a long time. When I said "as we know it", I was talking about marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

Why do you presume to be so arrogant as to include your opponents in your "we" statements? As I know it, marriage has changed it's make-up several times during the last 100 years. "Traditional Marriage" is Bull&*&%!
 
Hardenbergh said:
A hundred years is still a long time. When I said "as we know it", I was talking about marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

You mean marriage between one man, and one or more women who had no rights whatsoever, and who risked being stoned to death for all manner of trespasses against him?

Later, in the middle ages, polygamy was considered wrong, but women were still considered to be property. Even into the reniassance, women had no rights in marriage, which is part of the reason why even Elizabeth I of England died a maid (though almost certainly not a virgin). As we look at the Victorian era, we find that women weren't even allowed to walk down the street unescorted, unless they wished to risk being arrested as prostitues. It is only until quite recently that we redefined marriage as a willing partnership between equals, instead of an exchange of property.



http://www.irish-society.org/Hedgemaster Archives/brehon_laws.htm

I know very little about the "ancient, pre-Christian Irish."
Click to expand...

You see that link? It has information. Try google, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom