Marriage Debate

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Very true and supportable?

Than support it, Wise Man. Show me.

You first.

Don't give me that "you first" crap.

I cited a link. You didn't.

You wrote your "very true and supportable" BS right out of your bottom.

Show me. Show us how "very true and supportable" you line of manure truly is.

The experience of the race, particularly in its movement toward and its progress in civilization, has approved monogamy for the simple reason that monogamy is in harmony with the essential and immutable elements of human nature

Please provide evidence to support this. I was just showing that you can make all kinds of blanket statements.

I didn't make the statement. I provided the link. Unlike you.

And you wouldn't know about the "experience of the race" if you're a young, stupid kid.

The evidence of the statement comes with life. Clearly, you haven't been around long enough to know or understand.

 

[Huntster]

Well that looks like a good endorcement of shaking up with women, but I don't see anything about marriage or monogomy or many other things that you seem to be interested in.

What do you know about what I'm "interested in"?

BTW, it's spelled: endorsement.

Looks like an endorcement of sex to me.

Yeah. Marriage is an endorsement of sex.

Get a clue, kid....................

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The planet where I do this sort of thing for a living, remember? Not that I'm not interested in your opinions about the development of our system of laws.



First of all, even very old patriarchal systems of family law - indeed, even systems where families were considered akin to chattels - were partly conceived with a view toward preserving the welfare of women and children. The late Allan Bloom described the scenario succinctly:

What societies are you possibly refering to? You don't mean ancient Jewish and then the following Christian societies, do you? The societies that admonish women for speaking in church, that societies that command people to stone to death disobedient children and encourage people to turn over their daughters to rapists, to protect male guests?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Don't give me that "you first" crap.

I cited a link. You didn't.

SO I can cite links that don't have any support in their statements and that counts as supplying suport?

You typed some crap with no link, then put your "very true and supportable" BS to it.

Show me. Show us.

Or stop typing.

Your link did not suport its statements either.

If a link supports statements how about this one

http://www.neo-tech.com/neotech/advantages/advantage33.html

 

[ponderingturtle]

What do you know about what I'm "interested in"?

BTW, it's spelled: endorsement.



Yeah. Marriage is an endorsement of sex.

Get a clue, kid....................

But that quote was about sex not marriage. It is only if you view marriage as a prerequisite for sex that you get that as an endorsement for marriage.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

But that quote was about sex not marriage. It is only if you view marriage as a prerequisite for sex that you get that as an endorsement for marriage.

I think it’d not even be that. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me with Huntster’s religion marriage is what makes sex permissible for those so inclined, not endorsed, right?

It may even go further than that. Does the RCC think Paul’s advice is still applicable in 1Cor 7:1-9?

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

…cut…

For I would that all men were even as I myself [unmarried and celibate, one would suppose here]. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

It’s good not to ever have sex (it's certainly not endorsed here), and the unmarried should stay unmarried, BUT marriage is a way to keep from hell if you must have sex. Is that the position of the RCC also? I don’t know (but it certainly may not be considering what I’ve read on their web site).

Still, as you say, this isn’t necessarily the case for other religions and the state. Because, for example, I can buy a cup of coffee at my state capital doesn’t mean the state endorses coffee drinking to the moral chagrin of the LDS. They just allow it without a stance.

Besides, didn’t you, Huntster, say marriage was about the welfare of children and families just a couple pages ago? Certainly you know sex is not needed for every family with children; it’s not even needed to result in a pregnancy. Couples may adopt or use some other method to end up with a house full of kids and a homemaker still in need of marriage law to protect them and the public, but they may never have sex and it need never be said to be endorsed by the state here.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yeah. Marriage is an endorsement of sex.

Is that in the marriage vows?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is that in the marriage vows?

Well the part about obeying could be taken as an endorsement of BDSM practices I guess.

 

[Meadmaker]

Gwyn,
Upchurch is bored or busy, (can't blame him in either case) so I'll answer your objection directly. You were saying that the only reason to have two equal institutions was to preserve the sanctity of marriage. (I'm slightly simplifying. Let me know if it's oversimplified.)

Let me offer another.

I have a seven year old son. Someday, he'll be an adolescent. Let us imagine that when that happens, he realizes he's bisexual. That isn't such a bizarre, outlandish possibility is it?
If that happens, I want him to pick girls. Especially when it comes time to pick a life partner, I want it to be a woman.

So, I want to encourage him to do that, and I want society's help. One way to do that would be to hold that word to be of special value, reserved for one man, one woman. That isn't a moral judgement, and it sure as heck isn't a religious judgement.

 

[Random]

Gwyn,
Upchurch is bored or busy, (can't blame him in either case) so I'll answer your objection directly. You were saying that the only reason to have two equal institutions was to preserve the sanctity of marriage. (I'm slightly simplifying. Let me know if it's oversimplified.)

Let me offer another.

I have a seven year old son. Someday, he'll be an adolescent. Let us imagine that when that happens, he realizes he's bisexual. That isn't such a bizarre, outlandish possibility is it?
If that happens, I want him to pick girls. Especially when it comes time to pick a life partner, I want it to be a woman.

So, I want to encourage him to do that, and I want society's help. One way to do that would be to hold that word to be of special value, reserved for one man, one woman. That isn't a moral judgement, and it sure as heck isn't a religious judgement.

So basically you want to control your son’s life and want society to help you? I think you have just made a moral judgment or two in this situation.

First is wanting him to “pick” girls, thereby implying that picking boys is an inferior decision (quite aside from issues as to why he should have to “pick” one or the other if he is bisexual).

Then you decide that your judgment is superior to his, and make it sound like your desires for how he lives his life are more important than his own.

Then you feel society should help you enforce this.

Then you feel that society should discriminate against homosexual couples who have absolutely nothing to do with your relationship with your son by denying them the right to marry.

Have I got that right?

 

[Terry]

I have a seven year old son. Someday, he'll be an adolescent. Let us imagine that when that happens, he realizes he's bisexual. That isn't such a bizarre, outlandish possibility is it?
If that happens, I want him to pick girls. Especially when it comes time to pick a life partner, I want it to be a woman.

Why?

 

[Meadmaker]

Why?

Grandchildren.

Yeah, I know. There's adoption. There's surrogate mothers. There's all sorts of technology. Blah, blah, blah. If he picks a girl to marry, there's a very good chance he won't need any of those.

Do I want society's help. Yes, I do. Does it have to come by limiting marriage to a man and a woman? No, but that is one way to do it. I was pointing out that there are reasons other than religious why one would want to distinguish between same sex and opposite sex unions.

 

[thaiboxerken]

There aren't any good reasons though, Meadmaker.

 

[ceo_esq]

What societies are you possibly refering to? You don't mean ancient Jewish and then the following Christian societies, do you? The societies that admonish women for speaking in church, that societies that command people to stone to death disobedient children and encourage people to turn over their daughters to rapists, to protect male guests?

Yes, ancient Jewish and early Christian societies are included in the reference. The things you're referring to are obviously not formally inconsistent with what I was talking about, and are of questionable relevance even if true. Yet a number of things should also be pointed out.

First, I can find no evidence in legal codes or in other historical sources that early Christian societies repressed women's speaking in church. I can only assume that you have in mind 1 Corinthians, although it seems far more plausible that this was the opposite of Paul's intention, and that he was quoting opponents in Corinth whom he then goes on to refute. Certainly, your interpretation is at variance with just about everything else Paul said about women, as well as evidence suggesting that women in Pauline communities suffered from no such restrictions.

Second, I can find no evidence in legal or historical sources that early Christian societies required, juridically or otherwise, that disobedient children be stoned.

Third, I find no evidence that the laws or mores of either Hebrew or Christian societies ever "encourage[d] people to turn over their daughters to rapists, to protect male guests". You presumably allude to the first part of Genesis 19, but it's unclear why that story is relevant. At any rate, it does not seem likely that the townspeople in that story were ravishers; when they ask to "know" the visitors, they are using the same term employed in juridical/treaty contexts of that time to refer to formal (legal) recognition of a person's identity or status. Lot himself is suggested to be an important civil functionary in a dangerous time, apparently charged with responsibility for the city's gates. Rather than abandoning his daughter to rapists, Lot is observing the juridical custom (widely practiced in the ancient Near East) of the pledging of hostages into the protective custody of a counterparty. This would not have been understood as something likely to place Lot's daughters at serious risk.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Gwyn,
Upchurch is bored or busy, (can't blame him in either case) so I'll answer your objection directly. You were saying that the only reason to have two equal institutions was to preserve the sanctity of marriage. (I'm slightly simplifying. Let me know if it's oversimplified.)

Just a little oversimplified. It is more like "If it were possible and desirable for there to be two parallel marriage-like institutions which are completely equal, then the only reason to have the two is to preserve the sanctity of marriage."

The distinction is important because I don't believe that it is either possible or desirable*. However, you do, so I'm provisionally accepting the premise in order to further the discussion.

*On the other hand, if, as I believe, it is neither possible or desirable, then the only reason for two "separate but equal" institutions is to oppress the minority restricted to the lesser of the two "equal" institutions.

Let me offer another.

I have a seven year old son. Someday, he'll be an adolescent. Let us imagine that when that happens, he realizes he's bisexual. That isn't such a bizarre, outlandish possibility is it?
If that happens, I want him to pick girls. Especially when it comes time to pick a life partner, I want it to be a woman.

So, I want to encourage him to do that, and I want society's help. One way to do that would be to hold that word to be of special value, reserved for one man, one woman. That isn't a moral judgement, and it sure as heck isn't a religious judgement.

It need not be religious to have a degree of sanctity. There is a secondary meaning to the word, "set apart" with the connotation "set apart as more disirable." If you want to "encourage him to do that," and you "want society's help," then you do want to preserve the sanctity of "one man, one woman marriage."

And as has already been noted by other posters, it most certainly is a moral judgment. Nor is there anything wrong with it as a judgment.

But when you expect the government to support it, you need to show reasons why there is an objective need for it in society, and if there is any religious view which disadvantaged by supporting it, there must be strict scrutiny on the reasons advanced.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Following up on the footnote in my last post.

I'm sure that you've heard the expression "If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck." But have you ever heard the joke attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four: calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

The question is whether, under Meadmaker's compromise, same-sex unions are ducks or dogs. Whether the only difference is, as he claims, that we don't use the word "marriage," or whether no matter how equal he claims civil union can be made to marriage, there is still a fundamental difference.

This is the stumbling block that we always come back to in discussions with Meadmaker. He insists that the difference between marriage and civil union is only in the name, and that he suggests the two institutions, not because two are necessary, but because the current generation has certain prejudices about the word "marriage." And they would be more willing to accept same-sex unions -- equal in every way to marriages -- if they did not have to call them marriages.

But he, himself, in yesterday's post, indicated that he sees a fundamental difference in whether his son's future partner is the the same or the opposite sex. Not only that, but he wants the way the government recognizes unions to reflect that fundamental difference, and to encourage the "right" choice over the "wrong" choice.

There are two ways to understand this latest position.

Either he is finally admitting that what he is asking for is two fundamentally different institutions, with same-sex unions being legally inferior. And, in turn, this means he may have been attempting to decieve us about his real agenda. Or, more likely, he has been deciving himself, instead.

Or he believes, philosophically, that there is no difference, but emotionally he, himself, is one of those prejudiced against same-sex unions. And although in his "gut" he wants the government to favor cross-sex marriage, he knows in his head that he is in the wrong.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Dave, say your son comes home with a nice woman. He’s in love with her and tells you he wants to spend the rest of his life with her. Then, through the course of conversation you find out she survived cancer but lost her reproductive anatomy in the process. Would you encourage him to leave her, and want society’s help?

Would you specifically want the law's help in splitting them up and encouraging your son to find someone else, someone he can be fertile with?

 

[Dave1001]

I discovered an excellent website with articles about the institution of marriage and why marriage should remain the same--one man and one woman. There are some very good arguments and after reading some of them, some gay marriage advocates may be convinced that things may be better off left alone (maybe).

I think the best argument for keeping marriage between a man and a woman is that there was probably a utilitarian value to such constructs, because it has existed for thousands of years without serious challenge in pretty much all successful modern civilizations, including independent ones from christianity (Japan, China, India, the islamic Middle East). Sure some elites were polygamous in some of these civilizations, but the majority of the populations were married one man and one woman.

However, since only 4% of the population is genetically gay, I suspect gay marriage would not have a big impact on the marriage numbers.

Anyways, it's being tested out now. Gay marriage is legal in some parts of the world, not legal in other parts of the world. We'll get a sense of how it plays out over time.

Personally, I think gay marriage being legal everywhere will have a positive impact on global civilization, because it will reduce non-utilitarian forms of stress for gay people and thus improve their productivity.

I think it was a lot more dangerous to our collective well-being to eliminate longstanding social institutions such as child labor in many parts of the world. That was potentially a big loss of productivity. But we survived.

 

[Dave1001]

Dave, say your son comes home with a nice woman. He’s in love with her and tells you he wants to spend the rest of his life with her. Then, through the course of conversation you find out she survived cancer but lost her reproductive anatomy in the process. Would you encourage him to leave her, and want society’s help?

Would you specifically want the law's help in splitting them up and encouraging your son to find someone else, someone he can be fertile with?

If we as society want our offspring to engage in utilitarian sexual behavior, shouldn't we be combining the sperm and eggs of the best living problem solvers in the world, implanting them in the healthiest childbearing women, and then have them raised by the best educators in the best environments? I'm not sure the rest of us truly serve a necessary reproductive purpose.

Also, for the sake of genetic diversity I'm not sure we need more than the world's 6,000 smartest people or so (and maybe significantly less).

I say this in a not particularly joking or Swiftian way- it's an honest appraisal.

Procreation for the rest of us is ego divorced to what's in the utilitarian interest of the species, seems to me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Following up on the footnote in my last post.

I'm sure that you've heard the expression "If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck." But have you ever heard the joke attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four: calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

The question is whether, under Meadmaker's compromise, same-sex unions are ducks or dogs. Whether the only difference is, as he claims, that we don't use the word "marriage," or whether no matter how equal he claims civil union can be made to marriage, there is still a fundamental difference.....

A very insightful post there, Gwyn. I really like the example.