Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Hindu Marriage Moral
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 108 (333239)
07-19-2006 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
07-18-2006 11:40 PM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
20 billion cultures that have hetero marriage, one that also has homo marriage.
"20 billion", huh?
Boy, you really do just make it up as you go along, don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 07-18-2006 11:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 108 (333272)
07-19-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
07-18-2006 11:40 PM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
20 billion cultures that have hetero marriage
20 billion cultures?
We're supposed to have been around for, like, 6000 years, right? So what's that, like... almost 3.5 million cultures cropping up and dying out a year?
It'd be cool if they were all still around! We'd have more than three cultures for every man, woman, and child on the planet!

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 07-18-2006 11:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 18 of 108 (333273)
07-19-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
07-17-2006 5:59 PM


faith writes:
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
In a secular democracy governmental legitimization does not equate to Christian legitimization. You seem to forget that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 07-17-2006 5:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 11:38 AM RickJB has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 108 (333280)
07-19-2006 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by RickJB
07-19-2006 10:48 AM


I didn't forget anything. The OP asked why Christians don't object to Hindu marriage. I said why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RickJB, posted 07-19-2006 10:48 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RickJB, posted 07-19-2006 11:44 AM Faith has replied
 Message 21 by happy_atheist, posted 07-19-2006 12:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 20 of 108 (333284)
07-19-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
07-19-2006 11:38 AM


So you expect a secular government to enact law for religious reasons in order to avoid "national sin"?
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 11:38 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 1:36 PM RickJB has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 21 of 108 (333319)
07-19-2006 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
07-19-2006 11:38 AM


Your objections are very different to the objections I saw in the other thread. The objections I saw there were basically "We can't legalise homosexual marriage because it is immoral".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 11:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 108 (333332)
07-19-2006 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RickJB
07-19-2006 11:44 AM


So you expect a secular government to enact law for religious reasons in order to avoid "national sin"?
Expect? No. I'm afraid this sensible reason is scoffed at so that no, I expect nothing from scoffers.
Religious reasons? Who said they were religious? if you are talking about gay marriage, I've argued from history, the weight of crosscultural practice over the millennia, not religion.
Also, talking about gay marriage, the only "enacting" in question is the changing of millennia of practice to accommodate something that is immoral by MOST standards of MOST cultures all the way back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RickJB, posted 07-19-2006 11:44 AM RickJB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2006 6:57 PM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 108 (333493)
07-19-2006 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
07-19-2006 1:36 PM


I've argued from history, the weight of crosscultural practice over the millennia, not religion.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 1:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 7:29 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 24 of 108 (333503)
07-19-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
07-19-2006 6:57 PM


It was shown. You all just ignore it and interpret it away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2006 6:57 PM RAZD has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 108 (333508)
07-19-2006 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Omnivorous
07-18-2006 9:32 PM


Re: What about D-I-V-O-R-C-E?
quote:
One also wonders why the throng is not at the gate to dissolve divorce courts
Senator Rick Santorum:
"Divorce is simply far too easy to get in this country," he writes. "States should put in braking mechanisms for couples who have children under the age of 18. This means a mandatory waiting period and mandatory counseling before a divorce is granted."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Omnivorous, posted 07-18-2006 9:32 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 108 (333509)
07-19-2006 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
07-18-2006 11:40 PM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
quote:
SSOoooooooooooooo clever. 20 billion cultures that have hetero marriage, one that also has homo marriage. Sure do disprove the rule.
quote:
Religious reasons? Who said they were religious? if you are talking about gay marriage, I've argued from history, the weight of crosscultural practice over the millennia, not religion.
Also, talking about gay marriage, the only "enacting" in question is the changing of millennia of practice to accommodate something that is immoral by MOST standards of MOST cultures all the way back.
So, are you saying that because a culture, or many cultures, have maintained one aspect of that culture for a certain period of time, this means that that aspect must never, ever be allowed to change?
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 07-18-2006 11:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 108 (333518)
07-19-2006 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
07-18-2006 10:47 PM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
Let's talk about your denial of facts:
Nobody said homosexuality is rare, just homosexual marriage. "Having a relationship" is not marriage.
Compare to:
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. It has taken many forms but has not been ignored or disdained by any culture until very recent times in the West.
(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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 07-18-2006 10:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 9:14 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 28 of 108 (333546)
07-19-2006 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
07-19-2006 8:07 PM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
Let's talk about your denial of facts:
Nobody said homosexuality is rare, just homosexual marriage. "Having a relationship" is not marriage.
Compare to:
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. It has taken many forms but has not been ignored or disdained by any culture until very recent times in the West.(bold for empHASis)
Aside from equivocating from "never" to "rare" ...
Yes, I should have acknowledged that I was conceding the possisbility of some extremely rare, nearly nonexistent instances. Although in fact I haven't seen any.
Something that is "just as a cultural expression" and that "has taken many forms" is a relationship, not a marriage.
I beg your pardon. It's a marriage and you haven't proved otherwise. You are redefining my words to mean what YOU want them to mean. No. "Just a cultural expression" simply meant "not religious." "Cultural expression" implies something culturally SANCTIONED, LEGITIMATED, officially publically recognized etc. etc. etc. The "forms" it has taken refers to customs and to polygamous marriages -- still heterosexual. You can't decide that it's not a marriage but just "a relationship" to suit yourself when I obviously used it to describe a culturally legitimated nonreligious official 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.
I meant marriage, official, celebratory, public, culturally sanctioned, marriage. You are making it into something else. Into a mere "relationship?" Honestly, I have no idea what you are doing, just refusing to read simple English it seems to me.
You cannot make a definition of marriage that can be applied to the Na of China and that excludes homosexual relationships.
My definition of marriage is not falsified by anything you've said or linked. Let me remind you again of my definition:
quote:
...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.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU HAVE SAID HAS CONTRADICTED THIS DEFINITION.
You cannot make your definitions fit your beliefs because you want to or because it makes you comfortable to do so.
You are the one committing that bit of sleight of hand.
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).
Have you provided even ONE instance of homosexual marriage that fits my definition of a culturally officially sanctioned union? I can't remember. Maybe you produced ONE? A "relationship" I repeat, is NOT a marriage. Marriage is a culturally legitimizing rite. What I said was that universally, in all times and places, it has been for uniting male and female, and NOTHING you have said contradicts that definition. Even if in some extremely rare and perverse instances a culture has officially sanctioned homosexuality -- and I haven't seen this yet, only temporary arrangements and relationships -- what I said about the purpose being to unite male and female stands. It's universal. There is no exception to this. That is the purpose of marriage everywhere in all times and places.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2006 8:07 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2006 10:02 PM Faith has replied
 Message 30 by nator, posted 07-20-2006 6:42 AM Faith has replied
 Message 36 by nwr, posted 07-20-2006 8:58 AM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 29 of 108 (333552)
07-19-2006 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
07-19-2006 9:14 PM


Denial and Bias
Denial is like that.
No. "Just a cultural expression" simply meant "not religious." "Cultural expression" implies something culturally SANCTIONED, LEGITIMATED, officially publically recognized etc. etc. etc.
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).
My definition of marriage is not falsified by anything you've said or linked. Let me remind you again of my definition:
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.
... it has been for uniting male and female, and NOTHING you have said contradicts that definition.
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?
... to unite male and female stands. It's universal. There is no exception to this. ... homosexuality -- and I haven't seen this yet, only temporary arrangements and relationships ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 9:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 07-20-2006 7:08 AM RAZD has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 30 of 108 (333626)
07-20-2006 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
07-19-2006 9:14 PM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
quote:
Marriage is a culturally legitimizing rite. What I said was that universally, in all times and places, it has been for uniting male and female, and NOTHING you have said contradicts that definition. Even if in some extremely rare and perverse instances a culture has officially sanctioned homosexuality -- and I haven't seen this yet, only temporary arrangements and relationships -- what I said about the purpose being to unite male and female stands. It's universal. There is no exception to this. That is the purpose of marriage everywhere in all times and places.
So, are you saying that because a culture, or many cultures, have maintained one aspect of that culture for a certain period of time, this means that that aspect must never, ever be allowed to change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 9:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 07-20-2006 7:03 AM nator has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024