Socrates Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 (edited) [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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirMyztiq Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted December 12, 2004 Share Posted December 12, 2004 [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!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 [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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 [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] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 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?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now