|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Hindu Marriage Moral | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4943 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
I have been reading the Is Gay Marriage Immoral thread with some interest. Now I understand that Christians think that homosexuality is immoral. What I don't understand is why homosexuals are being persecuted over this more than many other people who lead equally immoral lifestyles according to the bible.
The first commandment clearly states that "you shall have no other gods before me". Hindus not only have other gods before "him", they have upwards of 3 million other gods at the exclusion of "him"!. Why are hindus allowed to marry with no fuss whatsoever? Are the Hindus allowed to flout that commandment? Now I'm sure you can claim that Hindus aren't Christian and so would obviously not pay that Commandment any heed, but then gay people aren't Christian either (well not exclusively). Why are they forced to Christian standards when other groups aren't? (Note that this isn't the place to discuss whether or not gay marriage is immoral, that more suited to the Is Gay Marriage Immoral thread ) Edited by happy_atheist, : Added url tags around "Is Gay Marriage Immoral"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminFaith Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 641 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hindu marriage, IMO, has some immoral elements to it. It is not immoral in their culture though.
The introduction of the 'dowery' I feel is very immoral, and has caused some destructive behavior in that culture such as killing of brides if they weren't paid in full, aborting female fetuses,and poor families much more willing to sell young girls to 'prostitution rings' that are in the cities'. The bride price is a relatively new introductoin into the culture, and one I hope goes away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The introduction of the 'dowery' I feel is very immoral, and has caused some destructive behavior in that culture such as killing of brides if they weren't paid in full, aborting female fetuses,and poor families much more willing to sell young girls to 'prostitution rings' that are in the cities'. However Bride Price is also inherent in both Judaism and Christianity. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 641 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Yes, and it thankfully is no longer in there. In Judaism, and christianity, as far as I know, it did not cause the destructiveness that it currently in hinduism. It might be that hinduism grows out of the destructive behavior. Time will tell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Marriage, understood to be the uniting of male and female, sometimes with religious meaning, sometimes just as a cultural expression, is universal, has always existed in all cultures and all religions at all times. It has taken many forms but has not been ignored or disdained by any culture until very recent times in the West.
Christians infer from the Bible that marriage was established by God in Eden, so that the universality of its practice comes from God whether God is known in the culture or not.
What I don't understand is why homosexuals are being persecuted over this more than many other people who lead equally immoral lifestyles according to the bible. {edit: All are equally in violation of God's law, but homosexuals are demanding government legitimization of their unions which would put the nation in complicit sin with them, which makes them a political issue. However, there are other sins, as you suggest, that are also being supported by the nation that shouldn't be. Easy divorce for instance. Legal accommodations to cohabiting but unmarried couples for instance. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
docpotato Member (Idle past 5076 days) Posts: 334 From: Portland, OR Joined: |
However, there are other sins, as you suggest, that are also being supported by the nation that shouldn't be. Allowing, nay, encouraging a plurality of religions...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4943 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
However, there are other sins, as you suggest, that are also being supported by the nation that shouldn't be. Well my main point in this thread is why are no groups trying to make these other things illegal? I've never heard of any serious opposition to Hindu marriage. I've never even heard any opposition to people being Hindu. Now sure forced marriage is frowned upon (and rightly so in my opinion), but that is completely different to frowning on people being Hindu. That is no less immoral than homosexuality as far as I can tell from the Bible. If anything I'd say it is more so (and the same goes for just about any other religion). But these other religions get all the same support and tax breaks and rights as Christianity. I'm just surprised there is no objection to this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
But these other religions get all the same support and tax breaks and rights as Christianity. I'm just surprised there is no objection to this. Excellent point. One also wonders why the throng is not at the gate to dissolve divorce courts--those petitioners are seeking to make the rest of us (the State) subsidize an activity rejected by many (at least in theory ). Perhaps these are among the "other sins...that are also being supported by the nation that shouldn't be" that Faith mentions. God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’ --Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01 Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well my main point in this thread is why are no groups trying to make these other things illegal? I've never heard of any serious opposition to Hindu marriage. I've never even heard any opposition to people being Hindu. I thought I was clear that marriage is right because it was given by God in Eden, no matter what culture it exists in or what the people believe. Christians certainly argue that Hinduism is a false religion, but it doesn't affect the meaning of marriage.
Now sure forced marriage is frowned upon (and rightly so in my opinion), but that is completely different to frowning on people being Hindu. That is no less immoral than homosexuality as far as I can tell from the Bible. That is true, but nobody is arguing that people can't be either Hindu or homosexual, what is argued is that marriage is a union of male and female and homosexual marriage destroys the very meaning of marriage.
If anything I'd say it is more so (and the same goes for just about any other religion). But these other religions get all the same support and tax breaks and rights as Christianity. I'm just surprised there is no objection to this. There would be if we were a Christian theocracy, but we're not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"thou shalt not kill\murder" is one of the commandments, IIRC
the US military action in Iraq is regularly killing and murdering innocent victims EVERY DAY. the US military is supported by my taxes and it's actions are "legitimization" by the current administration
homosexuals are demanding government legitimization of their unions which would put the nation in complicit sin with them, which makes them a political issue. However, there are other sins, as you suggest, that are also being supported by the nation that shouldn't be. deal with ALL the issues, not just your personal HOT BUTTON issues or be a hypocrit.
Christians infer from the Bible that marriage was established by God in Eden, so that the universality of its practice comes from God whether God is known in the culture or not. Similar religious "inferences" can be made for any religion and for any secular union based on whatever creed or belief one chooses. That you can infer it (note: no direct reference? it has to be inferred???) does not make it EXCLUSIVE to christianity. That is false logic. Hindu Marriage is completely and unquestionably moral in every sense of the word, as is every other kind of marriage. The part of Marriage that is of concern to any government is that it is a contract between consenting individuals to love, honor and respect each other, in sickness and in health, to share, to help each other. It is not about sex and it is not about procreation.
Easy divorce for instance. Yes, it should be much more difficult for a woman to divorce an abusive husband, hopefully until long after he has killed her eh?
Legal accommodations to cohabiting but unmarried couples for instance. You mean people who CAN get married but choose NOT to, as compared to homosexuals who CAN'T get married even IF they want to?
Marriage, understood to be the uniting of male and female, sometimes with religious meaning, sometimes just as a cultural expression, is universal, has always existed in all cultures and all religions at all times. It has taken many forms but has not been ignored or disdained by any culture until very recent times in the West. Poppycock. There have been many societies where mating has been intentionally "shared" with others outside of a {pair bond} so that it is not an exclusive "uniting of male and female":
Some South American Cultures Have Partible Paternity: Men’s reproductive interests are best served by male control over female sexual behavior. To do this, men must choose the spouses either for themselves or their children, marriage must be for life, female promiscuity is forbidden, and support networks of women for women are disrupted or male support by other than a husband and his family is forbidden. In cultures where women choose their mates, women have broad sexual freedom and partible paternity is accepted, women clearly have the upper hand. In societies where women’s sexual activity is controlled by men, marriage is exclusive and male sexual jealousy is a constant threat, men have the upper hand. In between is a full range of combinations and options, all represented in the varying South American cultures depicted in the book. I also remember a report about a culture in New Guinea where it was believed that a boy could not become a man until he had had sex with one of the men in the tribe. I found a reference to it in wikipedia:Homosexuality - Wikipedia In many societies of Melanesia same-sex relationships are an integral part of the culture. Traditional Melanesian insemination rituals also existed where a boy, upon reaching a certain age would be paired with an older adolescent who would become his mentor and whom he would ritually fellate over a number of years in order to develop his own masculinity. In certain tribes of Papua New Guinea, for example, it is considered a normal ritual responsibility for a boy to have a relationship in order to accomplish his ascent into manhood. Many Melanesian societies, however, have become hostile towards same-sex relationships since the introduction of Christianity by European missionaries. (bold mine for empHASis) Note that the article discusses the pervasive traditions recognizing homosexual relationships in many societies around the world. Ignoring the equal recognition of homosexual relations in other cultures while only focusing on the heterosexual relations in other cultures is denying the evidence that exists. And then there were some cultures that did NOT have ANY institution of marriage:
A Society without Fathers or Husbands: The Na of China (an unbiased book review) This one culture, btw, disproves completely your assertion that marriage "is universal, has always existed in all cultures and all religions at all times" Each of these unions is just as moral as any other. You do NOT get to choose the morals of other people. And in America, we have (supposedly) the freedom of having any belief ... not just ones we would like everyone to have. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The rare exception certainly proves the rule. Nobody said homosexuality is rare, just homosexual marriage. "Having a relationship" is not marriage.
So there is every kind of perversion on earth, perversion of marriage, perversion of sex, so what? The human race is fallen, a bunch of sinners. What's new there? What's your point? The point of having laws is to restrain it as much as possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The rare exception certainly proves the rule. Exceptions don't prove rules; they disprove them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
SSOoooooooooooooo clever. 20 billion cultures that have hetero marriage, one that also has homo marriage. Sure do disprove the rule.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
20 billion cultures that have hetero marriage, one that also has homo marriage. Wrong again. Several cultures that recognize homosexual relations as well as heterosexual relations, ie - several that deal honestly with the spectrum of human sexual inclinations. The point is that only focusing on hetero relations in these cultures and ignoring the homosexual relations in them in order to quote a statistic that every culture has heterosexual relations (that you can then equate with "marriage") in them is using only PART of the data for the evidence and IGNORING the other part that CONTRADICTS the premise. This is a logical fallacy.
Sure do disprove the rule. You said universal in every culture. So ONE culture that does NOT have ANY marriage entrenched in it not only contradicts your claim it INVALIDATES it. Your claim:
Message 6 Marriage, understood to be the uniting of male and female, sometimes with religious meaning, sometimes just as a cultural expression, is universal, has always existed in all cultures and all religions at all times. Is false and has been proved false by the evidence. Now you could be honest and admit that this one culture makes your claim false, or you can continue to try to equivocate. Your choice. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024