a thought on marriage

[burnsspivey]

So, do I get to declare myself the winner since the debate seems to have stopped?

[toledo_jesus]

not a chance.

[SirMyztiq]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Nov 20 2004, 09:38 PM'] You know,
there is a much better form of contraceptive that NEVER fails when implemented properly.
To date, when used in the proper manner, the success rate is 100%.  The pill cant even boast that kind of record.
Plus, it is a proven fact that by using it, you will not contract any STD through intercourse. 
There are no messy creams.
No latex.
It's amazing.  Its been around a long time, yet so few people use it any more.























Its called ABSTINENCE. [/quote]
LOL.


I'm too sexy for abstinence. Sorry, I can't help it!

And Burns you OWN.

Abstinence isn't 100% for the reasons Pivey has said.

In fact, Pivey has pretty much settled this.

Although, my new bumper sticker is the TRUE solution to this problem:

Get YOUR religion out of MY Government.

Also, I read through much of the stuff debated. And Pivey has pretty much won this without my rhetoric and "SirMyztaken" ways!

Good job!

Back on topic though. The original post said that we should start with contraceptives...
Hmm, so if people like Socrates and Luigi were in power they would probably ban contraceptives right? Or at least they support the idea. Are people really that blind? Obviously sex isn't something religious. Only those who choose to believe in that religion see it that way. Thank God you aren't in power.

Marriage has always been symbolic. Then people added sex into it. Then they added man vs. woman. Then along came money and it became the prime concern.

It happens. It's called NOW, FUTURE, PROGRESS and adaption.

Live with it.

Edited December 10, 2004 by SirMyztiq

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Dec 9 2004, 08:31 PM'] LOL.


I'm too sexy for abstinence. Sorry, I can't help it!

And Burns you OWN.

Abstinence isn't 100% for the reasons Pivey has said.

In fact, Pivey has pretty much settled this.

Although, my new bumper sticker is the TRUE solution to this problem:

Get YOUR religion out of MY Government.

Also, I read through much of the stuff debated. And Pivey has pretty much won this without my rhetoric and "SirMyztaken" ways!

Good job!

Back on topic though. The original post said that we should start with contraceptives...
Hmm, so if people like Socrates and Luigi were in power they would probably ban contraceptives right? Or at least they support the idea. Are people really that blind? Obviously sex isn't something religious. Only those who choose to believe in that religion see it that way. Thank God you aren't in power.

Marriage has always been symbolic. Then people added sex into it. Then they added man vs. woman. Then along came money and it became the prime concern.

It happens. It's called NOW, FUTURE, PROGRESS and adaption.

Live with it. [/quote]
Heh. Danke Shoen.

Does Pivey refer to me? If so it should be Spivey, just so you know.

I have a catholic friend who wants to outlaw birth control -- except in cases where it's used for medical purposes and not as birth control. She also says that she doesn't want catholicism to be the supreme religion making the laws. I have a lot of trouble understanding that cognitive dissonance. It's one of those issues that bothers me to my core. How does one person dare to tell another how, when and why he/she can have sex? Even if you see it as a command from god, how is it any of your business -- shouldn't you let god take care of it?

/threadjack

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Dec 9 2004, 06:10 PM'] not a chance. [/quote]
Then bring it on! I'm trying to hone my skills here and nobody is arguing any more.

[Socrates]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Dec 9 2004, 08:31 PM'] Marriage has always been symbolic. Then people added sex into it. Then they added man vs. woman. Then along came money and it became the prime concern.

[/quote]
I'm sorry, but this is one of the most nonsensical posts I've yet read!

What is your basis for saying this?

At what time was there marriage that had nothing to do with man and woman (or "man vs. woman" [????]) or sex?

What was marriage about then? When were these sexless marriages without men and women performed?

(I suppose this was before the reign of the mysterious King what's-his-name who invented the Bible - and I suppose, heterosexual marriage - LOL.)

Marriage has always been between man and woman, and had the primary purpose of raising family.

Only in very recent times have people chosen to "redefine" it to mean other things.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 10 2004, 02:18 PM'] Marriage has always been between man and woman, and had the primary purpose of raising family.
[/quote]
Or man and women. Redefining marriage has a fairly strong tradition.

Edited December 10, 2004 by burnsspivey

[Socrates]

Yes, polygamy was/is practiced in some cultures. I would argue against polygamy, but it is still a heterosexual union between man and woman(women) for the purpose of procreation and raising of children.

This is what marriage has always been about, throughout history and in all cultures. It has never, ever been about homosexual "unions." (Yes, homosexuality has existed through history too, but it never had anything to do with marriage.)

All your arguments are based on equivication. Marriage is not something that has been constantly changing in its essential definition to meet people's changing whims (or political demands - as is true of "gay marriage")

This (whether "gay marriage" should be recognized as marriage) is what the debate was about. The argument that "gay marriages" are already legally recognized in places is a circular reasoning, and can resolve nothing. (It does not answer whether they should be recognized as "marriage"

I beleive God and nature ("natural law") is the ultimate source of law.
You beleive the human lawmaker is the ultimate source of law. ("positivism")

As long as we disagree on this essential philosophy, there will never be any agreement between us on gay marriage, or other similar issues.

[SirMyztiq]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 10 2004, 02:18 PM'] I'm sorry, but this is one of the most nonsensical posts I've yet read!

What is your basis for saying this?

At what time was there marriage that had nothing to do with man and woman (or "man vs. woman" [????]) or sex?

What was marriage about then? When were these sexless marriages without men and women performed?

(I suppose this was before the reign of the mysterious King what's-his-name who invented the Bible - and I suppose, heterosexual marriage - LOL.)

Marriage has always been between man and woman, and had the primary purpose of raising family.

Only in very recent times have people chosen to "redefine" it to mean other things. [/quote]
Yes. I'm sure the guys that walked around with the dinosaurs had formal ceremonies.

MARRIAGE AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. Is merely symbolic. With a little bonuses add it. Marriage was made to show commitment, love and union. Sex wasn't always a part of it until religions that decided to define it came along...



And no, the council who put together the Bible and appeased the pagans by blending their symbols and religions has nothing to do with it...


^^^

You're right. We will never agree. But see that isn't the point here. Regardless if we agree or not. You agree with your people trying to act for the government. That we have a problem with.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Dec 11 2004, 01:52 AM'] Yes. I'm sure the guys that walked around with the dinosaurs had formal ceremonies.

MARRIAGE AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. Is merely symbolic. With a little bonuses add it. Marriage was made to show commitment, love and union. Sex wasn't always a part of it until religions that decided to define it came along...



And no, the council who put together the Bible and appeased the pagans by blending their symbols and religions has nothing to do with it...


^^^

You're right. We will never agree. But see that isn't the point here. Regardless if we agree or not. You agree with your people trying to act for the government. That we have a problem with. [/quote]


WE have just as much right to steer the government as anybody else.

[Socrates]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Dec 10 2004, 11:52 PM'] Yes. I'm sure the guys that walked around with the dinosaurs had formal ceremonies.

MARRIAGE AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. Is merely symbolic. With a little bonuses add it. Marriage was made to show commitment, love and union. Sex wasn't always a part of it until religions that decided to define it came along...



And no, the council who put together the Bible and appeased the pagans by blending their symbols and religions has nothing to do with it...

[/quote]
(to quote Monty Python) You know much that is hidden!

What is your source for all this strange and remarkable information?
Your music history teacher again?

What is your basis for saying sex wasn't a part of marriage until "religions came along"?
Was this done by the "guys who walked around with dinosaurs"?
(geez, that dino-fixation again! )

Who or what were these sexless marriages between? Dinosaurs?

And what was this council that put together the Bible and appeased the pagans?
Obviously, you haven't read the Bible! (not much in there to appease pagans!)

Man-o-man, the name "SirMyztaken" don't even being to do you justice!!

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 10 2004, 10:37 PM'] This is what marriage has always been about, throughout history and in all cultures. It has never, ever been about homosexual "unions." (Yes, homosexuality has existed through history too, but it never had anything to do with marriage.)
[/quote]
So...native americans don't count as a culture? Or are you just wrong?

[quote]All your arguments are based on equivication.  Marriage is not something that has been constantly changing in its essential definition to meet people's changing whims (or political demands - as is true of "gay marriage")[/quote]

Right...so that's why it's no longer polygamy and divorce is now legal? I'm not eqivocating in any way -- I'm plainly stating that legal marriage and religious marriage are two different things and that they should be.

[quote]This (whether "gay marriage" should be recognized as marriage) is what the debate was about.  The argument that "gay marriages" are already legally recognized in places is a circular reasoning, and can resolve nothing.  (It does not answer whether they should be recognized as "marriage"[/quote]

Actually the question was whether government has the right and/or ability to change the definition of marriage. That question has already been answered yes inasmuch as we are discussing legal marriage.

[quote]I beleive God and nature ("natural law") is the ultimate source of law.
You beleive the human lawmaker is the ultimate source of law. ("positivism")

As long as we disagree on this essential philosophy, there will never be any agreement between us on gay marriage, or other similar issues.[/quote]

It doesn't matter whether we agree on the source of law, because that is not the question before us. The questions are:

1. Does the government have the ability/right to change the definition of legal marriage. A: Yes.
2. Does the government have the ability/right to change the definition of religious marriage. A: No.
3. Should the government change the definition of legal marriage. A: Still under debate.
4. Should the government change the definition of religious marriage. A: No.

I've yet to hear a convincing argument for the answer to 3 being no.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]So...native americans don't count as a culture?[/quote]


Yep you got it, there was no Native american culture EVER, if you would like to point out a particular Culture that had this custom then do so, please be specific.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 13 2004, 01:20 PM']

Yep you got it, there was no Native american culture EVER, if you would like to point out a particular Culture that had this custom then do so, please be specific. [/quote]
[quote]A berdache was one who was defined by spirituality, androgyny, women’s work and male/male homosexual relationships. The berdache could adopt the clothing of women, associate and be involved with women, do the work normally associated with women, [b]marry a man [/b]and take part in many spiritual ceremonies of the tribe.[/quote]

This was true for women too.

[quote]Many scholars now prefer the term 'two-spirit.' American Indian languages had a variety of terms -- winkte (Lakota), nadleeh (Navajo), hemanah (Cheyenne), kwid-(Tewa), tainna wa'ippe (Shoshone), dubuds (Paiute) and lhamana (Zuni) to identify "a person who has both male and female spirits within," notes Lakota scholar Beatrice Medicine.[/quote]

Culture: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 13 2004, 12:40 PM'] So...native americans don't count as a culture? Or are you just wrong?



Right...so that's why it's no longer polygamy and divorce is now legal? I'm not eqivocating in any way -- I'm plainly stating that legal marriage and religious marriage are two different things and that they should be.



Actually the question was whether government has the right and/or ability to change the definition of marriage. That question has already been answered yes inasmuch as we are discussing legal marriage.



It doesn't matter whether we agree on the source of law, because that is not the question before us. The questions are:

1. Does the government have the ability/right to change the definition of legal marriage. A: Yes.
2. Does the government have the ability/right to change the definition of religious marriage. A: No.
3. Should the government change the definition of legal marriage. A: Still under debate.
4. Should the government change the definition of religious marriage. A: No.

I've yet to hear a convincing argument for the answer to 3 being no. [/quote]
I've given my reasons, and if you don't find them convincing, so be it.

In a nutshell, the family (man woman and their children) is an institution essential to the health of any society, and thus should be supported by society.


The homosexual unions are not. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that they are.

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 13 2004, 12:40 PM']
Actually the question was whether government has the right and/or ability to change the definition of marriage. That question has already been answered yes inasmuch as we are discussing legal marriage.

[/quote]
Also note that "right" and "ability" are not the same thing. The government has the ability to do all kinds of wrong things provided it has the power and the support.

Might does not make right.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 14 2004, 12:55 PM'] I've given my reasons, and if you don't find them convincing, so be it.

In a nutshell, the family (man woman and their children) is an institution essential to the health of any society, and thus should be supported by society.


The homosexual unions are not. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that they are. [/quote]
[quote]"According to a statement from the executive board of the
11,000-member American Anthropological Association, more than a
century of cross-cultural anthropological research provides 'no
support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable
social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual
institution.' Instead, anthropologists have concluded that 'a vast
array of family types, including families built upon same-sex
partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.'
[/quote]

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 14 2004, 12:59 PM'] Also note that "right" and "ability" are not the same thing. The government has the ability to do all kinds of wrong things provided it has the power and the support.

Might does not make right. [/quote]
If the government has the ability to grant legal marriages it has the right to determine of what those marriages may consist.

[Socrates]

I really don't care what the American Anthropological Association says. These academic Associations are predictibly Left-wing and their statements are guided by politics more than science. They would never say anything that might upset the gay-rights crowd or other "progressive" political lobbies.

And their statement is a joke - they claim to make it based on "more than a century of research" while marriage was "an exclusively heterosexual institution" throughout the past two centuries, while "gay marriages" only began last year!

Who do they think they're kidding?!

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]If the government has the ability to grant legal marriages it has the right to determine of what those marriages may consist. [/quote]


that is an incrediblly silly statement, Governments have the ability to massacre civilians in mass, it doesn't mean they have the right to use that ability at all.