Is Hindu Marriage Moral

"thou shalt not kill\murder" is one of the commandments, IIRCthe 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 deal with ALL the issues, not just your personal HOT BUTTON issues or be a hypocrit. 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. Yes, it should be much more difficult for a woman to divorce an abusive husband, hopefully until long after he has killed her eh? 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? 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: 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 (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.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

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. 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: 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.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

And it has been shown that you are wrong in your assertion that it is historical.I guess that makes it - not just moral - the proper thing to have gay marriage, if you then have no religious objection.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : typot

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Let's talk about your denial of facts: Compare to: (bold for empHASis)Aside from equivocating from "never" to "rare" ...Something that is "just as a cultural expression" and that "has taken many forms" is a relationship, not a marriage.You cannot claim "marriage" status for one set of evidence with such a loose definition and then exclude it for another set of evidence that meets the same criteria, especially when there is more foundation for it in some cultures than there is for marriage in other cultures.You cannot make a definition of marriage that can be applied to the Na of China and that excludes homosexual relationships.You cannot make your definitions fit your beliefs because you want to or because it makes you comfortable to do so.There is no difference between Hindu marriage, civil marriage, homosexual marriage, or any other marriage - it's a contract between two people. That is what makes it moral (and how those people abide by their contract).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Denial is like that. I gave you one example of a publically recognized sanctioned legitimated homosexual relationship and noted where several others were that discussed such relationships around the world.I also gave you an example where there was NO such "culturally SANCTIONED, LEGITIMATED, officially publically recognized etc. etc. etc" between a man and a woman (the Na in China). That is exactly what this evidence above falsifies: you cannot make a definition of marriage that includes the Na and excludes the "culturally SANCTIONED, LEGITIMATED, officially publically recognized etc. etc. etc" of some homosexual relationships in other places of the world.What you have is a spectrum of "culturally SANCTIONED, LEGITIMATED, officially publically recognized etc. etc. etc" relationships between (1) heterosexuals and (b) homosexuals, and those spectrums overlap. Do you really mean you are {begging the question} - a logical fallacy - because you only allow male\female unions to be considered as evidence of unions between two people, and then claim "look they are only male\female unions" -- that you are not being honest with yourself? There are many cultures where sexual relationships between {male\female} partners is only "temporary arrangements and relationships" - so if you count this as "marriage" for heterosexual couples then you MUST count them equally as "marriage" for homosexual couples ...OR you are applying your bias to the selection of evidence so that it suits your preconception of the result (which makes you feel comfortable), and deny the evidence that contradicts your position (which is not honest).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

No, you deny it. Then "marriage" is not universal in all cultures. See, you are {begging the question} because you only count the evidence if it applies to heterosexual when the same level of relationship does not count for homosexuals. You are attempting to define "marriage" based on what is "universal" in all cultures, but you are not counting "universal" evidence, only the evidence that fits the definition you want to derive from it.What is the gross fallacy here is your denial of the evidence that refutes your position and your {begging the question}.The only way you can - with any honesty - deny homosexual relationships as being "marriage" is to also deny that "marriage" applies to the same level of cultural acceptance - or less - when those are the maximum level found in heterosexual relationships in some cultures.Of course that makes your definition based on your {personal religious} belief rather than a (thorougly falsified) universal position. Or it is just based on bigotry and bias and no evidence at all.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

(1) she's been flexible on the YEC bit before and(2) a "millenia" is a thousand years. The last few thousand years ago was still history.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

And yet when we talk about evidence for an old earth as in Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.
or
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)You seem to have some {excuse\explanation} for how the years don't count the same or for why you just refuse to deal with the evidence.I also believe that at one time you said you were not completely wedded to the 6000 years, but I could be mistaken there ... could it be 6001? 6010? 6100? Where do you draw the line?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

It may not have been a ... choice? What if adam was not ... aroused?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

So anything between {rape} and {consensual sex} constitutes a "ceremony" of marriage -- as long as it is for heterosexuals.Don't you get tired of equivocating?Low let's discuss all ceremonies that are more "binding" than that ... including hindu marriages etc. to "civil" ceremonies where there is a contract between two people to share resources and to care for each other (THAT is lacking in your example, but appears in Hindu marriages and homosexual ceremonies in other countries).Enjoy - it's your fantasy.Edited by RAZD, : add paragraph

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

I take this to be your driving theme, of which Hindu Marriage is just an example. Let's investigate what is involved in other traditions and other ways of bonding between peoples:Wiccan\Pagan Weddings (also involving multiple gods and goddesses, and the source of the christian "witch" myths etc)FROM: The History of Handfasting (click)
Note the reference to contract and to the ceremony being a civil government function before the church took over this function.FROM: A Wiccan Marriage (click)
What makes the marriage legal is civil laws, not any religious traditions.And example of a ceremony can be found at
http://www.ecauldron.com/handfast2.phpI did not find any reference to having sex let alone children, but there was reference to:

• pledging that the union will be one of perfect love and perfect trust
• granting them the deepest of love and richness of Body, of Soul, and of Spirit for so long as they desire to remain together.
• stating their desire to be united, one with the other, and making a pledge and testimony to their love and commitment to each other.
• the ceremony symbolizing the bonding of their souls, energy, and life force; that throughout their life together, they may know of nothing but each other's joy and love, in perfect balance and peace.

... you get the idea.Now why is wiccan marriage less evil than gay marriage?This is a cultural tradition of temporary marriages? Or one more honest about human behavior?Enjoyps -- this is not a reference to 'fisting' ...

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

In the previous message I discussed the Wiccan Marriage issue as another point of comparison (Hindu being the one in the OP).I also e-mailed "spelcaster" from one site: So there you have it, a belief system that does not exclude gays from the SAME ceremony as is used for heterosexuals.Does this now make Wiccan marriage worse?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Demonstrated to be a false assumption on your part by Message 67You assumed that your bias against homosexual marriage was universal -- that is not so.You keep trying to portray your position as universal in spite of the evidence that it isn't, and you keep insisting that the case for homosexuals is different than for any other couple combination -- it isn't.This is when bias becomes bigotry. Except that others don't see it as affecting either the concept of marriage or the "whole social structure" -- why?Because marriage is about a contract between two (or more) people to provide mutual support and to share resources and, what the heck, love.It doesn't matter who is involved, or how reproductive they are. In practical matters it makes no difference if the couple (or more) are heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, mutual-monosexual, non-sexual or a-sexual.Couples that are genetically incapable of having children are no different than other couples that are incapable of having children.We've talked about people where one is genetically male by appears to be a woman married to another man, and we've talked about couples that engage in the same sexual practices as homosexuals, and we've talked about couples where one or both have had sex change operations, and you have no problem with their being married.We've talked about relationships down through history, and other cultures that recognize homosexual relationships as being as normal as heterosexual relations, several with culture traditional ceremonies to mark them in the same way that marriages are marked.We've talked about cultures that have NO marriage ceremony or tradition, and we've talked about the extreme variation of relationships portrayed in the bible, often being of either rape or consensual casual sex, and with no attendant special culture traditional ceremony.Heck we've even seen evidence of same sex christian culture traditional ceremonies in Message 52At every turn you claim some universal special {X} applies when the couple is male and female when there is no universal {X} there is no universal dividing principle there is no logical reason for such bigotry. Thus speaks the true bigot. Don't care about evidence, don't care about whether the argument is based on facts, don't care if it is actually false, just change to another reason whenever necessary to maintain the oppression.Consider four people, we'll call {A}, {B}, {C} and {D}
{A} is legally married to {B}
{C} is legally married to {D}
They live in the same house, sharing expenses and resources.You don't know what goes on inside the house.Is it moral?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

In other words you place being american second to being christian Especially when it is YOU doing the trashing, (gotta change that constitution to make this a christian theocracy ...) Riiiight, just that religious law is given higher status than any old civil one, like freedom of (and from other's) religion ... juz lovs ta play tha martyr massa, juz lovs it ta deat ...Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

It isn't about Hindus having sex but about their worshiping other gods, multiple gods.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.