Traditional Marriage, Why It Matters, All Churches, Christians, Islam and Jews only please?

[muichimotsu]

But some will argue that sex has no significance. That it is outdated to believe that sex is anything more than a pleasurable act. If you think it is significant it is your choice. Indeed some will argue that the only reason sex is damaging to young children is because we as a society have put a stigma around sex and made it an "adult only" thing causing youngsters who engage in it to be left with a feeling of shame.

The fact is we all have beliefs. Yours aren't any more righteous than the next person regardless of whether or not you thoughts are governed by religion.

Sex can be primarily a pleasurable act without ignoring that it has a biological purpose that people can choose to participate in. The pleasure of sex can enhance intimacy of a couple, how is that a bad thing to encourage?

Sex is damaging to children because they aren't biologically fully developed nor do they have a full understanding of it to begin with or ability to appreciate it because of said limitations in biological development at that stage. It's not that complicated to make an argument without invoking religion.

I wasn't making claims about being right, I was saying they're more reasonable, which you've made fairly clear by these irrational notions that stereotype those you disagree with as sex perverts who want to corrupt children, which is factually untrue.

 

[Thanda]

Taking heroine is demonstrably damaging

The definition of damaging is also a subjective idea. It is demonstrably damaging to tattoo yourself but tattoos are not outlawed. Likewise it is demonstrably damaging to smoke. On the other hand to some it is also damaging to purposefully engage in activities that will prevent the continuation of the human race. Whether or not their right is not really the point.

The laws of the country cannot be against the will of the people. It is better for people to be willing governed by bad laws than to be forcefully governed by good laws - in a democracy at least.

 

[muichimotsu]

Out of what necessity? So people really couldn't figure out another way to get by through life without coming up with a whole ceremony? And where would they have learned this practice from? Where in the animal kingdom throughout the world (assuming you don't believe in common ancestors) would they have seen this practice of getting married? What inspired every single (or almost every single) culture in the world to have formal marriage ceremonies. Why did they not feel that courting and then having sex was enough. My argument is a argument to logic.

First necessity was ensuring a lineage was preserved by knowing that the child was from a particular mother and father joined for that significant purpose in the tribe.

The ceremony was a matter of cultural variance anyway, but to say that we started out rational as a society is ludicrous: of course we started out with superstitions and focus purely on habit instead of thinking critically.

One doesn't have to see marriage in nature for it to be a normative and natural practice in principle. I believe in common ancestors, just not those that are in mythological scriptures: we have a common ancestor with gorillas and chimpanzees, among others, for example, but that doesn't mean that we must see gorillas doing a big marriage rehearsal.

Because society recognized that the commitment was a compelling reason to see the authority of a family's lineage and its persistence through the marriage, so they had to make it recognized as such. Eventually they recognized that the commitment and love between a couple was significant in a way that was also in line with the idea of promoting family as a strong institution.

An argument to logic is a non sequitur and a nonsensical expression. You appeal to logic, you don't argue to logic, since logical laws are a priori, not a posteriori.

 

[Thanda]

I wasn't making claims about being right, I was saying they're more reasonable, which you've made fairly clear by these irrational notions that stereotype those you disagree with as sex perverts who want to corrupt children, which is factually untrue.

Please don't put words in my mouth - I did not say you were a sex pervert nor did I insinuate that.

Sex is damaging to children because they aren't biologically fully developed nor do they have a full understanding of it to begin with or ability to appreciate it because of said limitations in biological development at that stage

This may be true of 6 year old children but the argument begins to fall apart at about 13 or 14. While some children's bodies might still not be sufficiently developed for sex by that age may are. Therefore the age of consent being 16 (in my country - 18 in the US I think) becomes an arbitrary number decided by people. People become adults at age 12 in some countries. In some countries the age of consent is 14. My point is that with laws there always be an element of subjectivity - whether or not religion is involved.

 

[muichimotsu]

The definition of damaging is also a subjective idea. It is demonstrably damaging to tattoo yourself but tattoos are not outlawed. Likewise it is demonstrably damaging to smoke. On the other hand to some it is also damaging to purposefully engage in activities that will prevent the continuation of the human race. Whether or not their right is not really the point.

The laws of the country cannot be against the will of the people. It is better for people to be willing governed by bad laws than to be forcefully governed by good laws - in a democracy at least.

Didn't even realize I mispelled heroin, bleh.

It's not that subjective when you can see demonstrably that heroin causes people to become more risk taking and generally a threat to themselves and others, similar to meth and cocaine. Don't try to obfuscate by appealing to your strawman of postmodernism or even assuming that everyone believes that who disagrees with your antiquated idea of marriage.

If I might apply the doctrine of double effect: some things can be temporarily harmful, but have a good end. Tattooing hurts, but it's not demonstrably damaging like injecting yourself with toxic substances that give you some temporary high and then create an addiction.

Actually they can when the will of the people goes against the general protections of the law: when the people vote against the rights of gay people, it isn't just going to stand because it's majority, but because someone can make some argument as to why gays shouldn't have this right. But I've seen no such thing, so gay people should have those rights, even if people voted against it in some majority legislation. Majority doesn't absolutely rule, especially when the U.S. is founded on acknowledging the minority's rights as well.

I'm not going to be willingly governed by a bad law when I can see it as such. You seem to mistakenly think this is based on pure fascism, when this is part of the checks and balances in the governmental system: judicial discretion on the constitutionality of a law is how we see laws as bad. Or would you rather just wait for rights to come after decades of unnecessary suffering because you think any change to the majority is automatically a "threat"?

We aren't a strict democracy: we're a representative constitutional republic. Democracy is at most the method of election, but not necessarily how laws are maintained.

 

[Thanda]

First necessity was ensuring a lineage was preserved by knowing that the child was from a particular mother and father joined for that significant purpose in the tribe.

The ceremony was a matter of cultural variance anyway, but to say that we started out rational as a society is ludicrous: of course we started out with superstitions and focus purely on habit instead of thinking critically.

One doesn't have to see marriage in nature for it to be a normative and natural practice in principle. I believe in common ancestors, just not those that are in mythological scriptures: we have a common ancestor with gorillas and chimpanzees, among others, for example, but that doesn't mean that we must see gorillas doing a big marriage rehearsal.

Because society recognized that the commitment was a compelling reason to see the authority of a family's lineage and its persistence through the marriage, so they had to make it recognized as such. Eventually they recognized that the commitment and love between a couple was significant in a way that was also in line with the idea of promoting family as a strong institution.

An argument to logic is a non sequitur and a nonsensical expression. You appeal to logic, you don't argue to logic, since logical laws are a priori, not a posteriori.

Yet still, isn't it a bit of a miracle that they ALL went through just that thought process you describe? In direct contrast to anything found in nature. I believe it is for more logical to believe in the common ancestor theory than to believe that throughout the world, at the same time, humans were going through the same thought process and coming to the same conclusion. Interestingly science has proven that we do have a so called common latest ancestor. Both male and female although science don't believe they lived during the same time. But they'll come around

 

[Ingledsva]

How do you know they weren't married? Were you there?

It does NOT say they were married.

*

 

[Thanda]

It's not that subjective when you can see demonstrably that heroin causes people to become more risk taking and generally a threat to themselves and others, similar to meth and cocaine.

Being promiscuity is demonstrably damaging to oneself and others - unwanted pregnancies, rampant single motherhood, abortions, disease, psychological and emotional effects. But instead of telling people to stop being promiscuous we rather try and develop ways to stop and counter the effects of these actions. The point I'm trying to make is that there is no science to law making. Even Judges are no exception to this principle. Do you believe that 100 years ago Judges would have ruled for same sex marriage? But now they do, why? Because times have changed and people think differently. Likewise 150 years ago Judges would not have ruled against racism. So in every thing that happens in relation to laws there is always the element of subjectivity and even of the arbitrary.

All I'm saying is that it is not an evil for a nation to decide what kind of marriage they are willing to accept. If what they believe is wrong than they should be educated until enough of them can see the light to allow for a change in the law. Trying to force feed a society the "right" way of doing things, or in other words trying to engage in social engineering is always a dangerous path: today the law they are forcing you to live may be good if you accept it what will happen when they start forcing bad laws in the country. It is so tempting to keep empowering government or Judges to force everyone to do what is right. But the time may come when these institutions become so powerful that what you and I have to say will no longer be important - just keep that in mind.

 

[Ingledsva]

Who decides what is legal consent? People. By that theory people can also decide who can give consent to have sex or marry. It is therefore perfectly just by your theory for people to decide that Gay people cannot have sex with each other and cannot get married.

LOL! Your anger is causing you to make ridiculous statements.

Legal consent is about cognitive functions such as reasoning and logic. - The age at which humans can give reasoned legal consent for sex or marriage.

It has nothing to do with stopping people who are of legal consent age, from having sex, or marrying.

*

 

[Thanda]

It does NOT say they were married.

*

Therefore according to you Adam had no nose since the Bible does not say he had a nose? What a puzzling argument.

 

[Thanda]

Legal consent is about cognitive functions such as reasoning and logic. - The age at which humans can give reasoned legal consent for sex or marriage.

No Mature consent is about cognitive functions such as reasoning and logic. Legal consent is about the law. The law is made by people. Do you have any proof that a 17 year-old gains some profound endowment of reasoning and logic one the day they become 18 which they did not have the day before? But Legal consent is about the law and about the courts. If you engage in sex with a 17 years and 364 day old child you are a rapist. If you wait a day you are engaging in consensual sex as two adults.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I could well say your heathen ideas on marriage don't belong in US law.

You can say anything you want to say; but in saying it doesn't make it true. "heathen" is such a vague term that I don't want to get into it; but its absolutely correct to say that "religious ideas on marriage don't belong in US law".

Indeed some will argue that the only reason sex is damaging to young children is because we as a society have put a stigma around sex and made it an "adult only" thing causing youngsters who engage in it to be left with a feeling of shame.

Yes, some will argue that. But the problem is, these people have no evidence to back it up; and there is plentiful evidence to say that they are wrong. Just "saying" something does not give an argument any validity. All arguments against same sex marriage have lacked validity as applied to secular law. It is because all arguments against same sex marriage have lacked validity as applied to secular law is why these arguments have been dismissed.

Besides, the last I heard, the laws of our secular government are not considering legalizing under-aged sexual contact or under aged marriage. Nor do I see that they are considering modifying the principles of consent. As a result, I see no validity whatsoever as they are nothing more than red herrings, alarmism and mud slinging.

Where in the animal kingdom throughout the world (assuming you don't believe in common ancestors) would they have seen this practice of getting married? What inspired every single (or almost every single) culture in the world to have formal marriage ceremonies. Why did they not feel that courting and then having sex was enough. My argument is a argument to logic.

Gibbons, Swans, Black Vultures, French Angelfish, Wolves, Albatrosses, Termites, Prairie Voles, Turtle Doves, Schisosoma Mansoni Worms, Bald Eagles, and Scarlett Macaws all mate for life. "Marriage" is found in nature outside of the human species. Marriage, the value of marriage, the rules of marriage, the value of virginity, the value of fidelity ... all of these points surrounding "marriage" have varied throughout time and in different places throughout human history. Moreover, it has been well voiced in this forum that everyone involved values and respects "traditional marriage". With that being said, I do not understand what your arguments have to do with same sex marriage in secular law. Make a point, would you?

 

[Thanda]

You can say anything you want to say; but in saying it doesn't make it true

That was the point.

 

[Ingledsva]

I could well say your heathen ideas on marriage don't belong in US law.

No-one's religious ideas about marriage should be in US Law! Period!

You have a right to marry - so should they!

Your, or any other religions' religious ideas about what is moral in marriage, - do NOT belong in US Law.

Religion has tried to turn anything but missionary position in marriage - into sin. LOLOLOLO!

Should you be able to enforce those (missionary position) religious moral ideas about marriage???

*

 

[muichimotsu]

Please don't put words in my mouth - I did not say you were a sex pervert nor did I insinuate that.



This may be true of 6 year old children but the argument begins to fall apart at about 13 or 14. While some children's bodies might still not be sufficiently developed for sex by that age may are. Therefore the age of consent being 16 (in my country - 18 in the US I think) becomes an arbitrary number decided by people. People become adults at age 12 in some countries. In some countries the age of consent is 14. My point is that with laws there always be an element of subjectivity - whether or not religion is involved.

At the very least, you're alluding to some problem that I somehow support. Or is this just a general observation?

Not arbitrary, but differing based on cultural perceptions. Age of consent used to be 13 back in the day, do you really want that? I doubt either of us want the age of consent to be lower than that at 9, like in Iran or the like.

Not subjectivity so much as relativity to culture, which is not the same thing as people arbitrarily deciding, but that the standards are going to differ because we aren't that interconnected in every way with regards to law across the world. Just because there are differences isn't a reason to say it's somehow so subjective that you imply it's pointless to discuss.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

No Mature consent is about cognitive functions such as reasoning and logic. Legal consent is about the law. The law is made by people. Do you have any proof that a 17 year-old gains some profound endowment of reasoning and logic one the day they become 18 which they did not have the day before? But Legal consent is about the law and about the courts. If you engage with a 17 years and 364 day old child you are a rapist. If you wait a day you are engaging in consensual sex as two adults.

Let's not waste time arguing against alarmist, mudslinging, ridiculous arguments regarding issues that aren't even issues and aren't even on the table. NO, 17 year olds don't gain some profound endowment of reasoning and logic when they turn 18; but in a society where all persons are individuals, who mature at different rates, who have different life experiences and education; the line has to be drawn somewhere. Are you advocating that the legal age of consent is incorrect or an erroneous conclusion? Or, are you advocating that our rules of consent are in error? If so, start a forum rather than arguing it here; because no one -- I repeat, NO ONE -- is suggesting that two of the same gender should be able to marry or have sex at age 12. It could be an interesting topic as there are many countries represented here, each with different ages of consent and different definitions of "consent". But none of that is on the table right now because that's not what we're talking about.

 

[Thanda]

No-one's religious ideas about marriage should be in US Law! Period!

You have a right to marry - so should they!

Your, or any other religions' religious ideas about what is moral in marriage, - do NOT belong in US Law.

Religion has tried to turn anything but missionary position in marriage - into sin. LOLOLOLO!

Should you be able to enforce those (missionary position) religious moral ideas about marriage???

*

No one's Heathen ideas should be in be in US law etc. etc. I could go on.

But here's the thing. You don't believe religion comes from God. I'm have a feeling you even doubt the existence of a God. Therefore according to you religious beliefs are just beliefs just come from own minds. And guess what, all belief of every kind comes from people's minds. Therefore you, by your own beliefs, should consider the beliefs of a religious person to be just as valid or invalid as those of any other person. Therefore by your own beliefs you shouldn't discount the beliefs of the religious any more than you would deny the beliefs of the non-religious.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yet still, isn't it a bit of a miracle that they ALL went through just that thought process you describe? In direct contrast to anything found in nature. I believe it is for more logical to believe in the common ancestor theory than to believe that throughout the world, at the same time, humans were going through the same thought process and coming to the same conclusion. Interestingly science has proven that we do have a so called common latest ancestor. Both male and female although science don't believe they lived during the same time. But they'll come around

You use the term miracle, but that's assuming something that's more than a bit presumptuous on your part.

I didn't say it was exact everywhere. Polygamy of one form or another was also a variation that would've come about for one reason or another, I didn't exclude that as a possibility.

You're confusing common ancestor in your Genesis fairy tail with evolutionary common ancestry. At least the latter has proof, there's pretty much nothing to support your claims that we all came from one couple that practiced inbreeding and yet was perfectly fine, while it's demonstrably damaging nowadays.

Your snide comment that science will come around to believing your completely nonsensical ideas of Genesis as literal isn't even taken seriously by many Christians, only about 30% actually believing in a literal 7 day creation or the like. Admitting we have a common evolutionary ancestor is not the same thing as saying we have some monolithic culture that split apart because of the Tower of Babel or such idiocy.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

That was the point.

Except that to say that religious ideas of marriage belong in US law is totally incorrect. It doesn't. It does not because US law is secular law, independent of religious law, as can be established by many court rulings. So therefore, "religious ideas of marriage do not belong in US law" can be substantiated by evidence. The other hooey you are spitting out here are not substantiated by evidence; or are provably false. Thus, have no merit.

 

[muichimotsu]

No one's Heathen ideas should be in be in US law etc. etc. I could go on.

But here's the thing. You don't believe religion comes from God. I'm have a feeling you even doubt the existence of a God. Therefore according to you religious beliefs are just beliefs just come from own minds. And guess what, all belief of every kind comes from people's minds. Therefore you, by your own beliefs, should consider the beliefs of a religious person to be just as valid or invalid as those of any other person. Therefore by your own beliefs you shouldn't discount the beliefs of the religious any more than you would deny the beliefs of the non-religious.

And what if I do? Beliefs regarding a god or the afterlife aren't automatically religious except in the most nominal of definitions. You're trying to skew everything to fit into your perspective, but it's not going to fly when the definition you use is questionable.

It's not denying your beliefs in terms of a general freedom, but that your beliefs, as you've made fairly clear, aren't based in rationality or science, but purely your convictions in the authenticity of a sacred text. That's not sound thinhking, nor is it something we should apply to civil law that applies to everyone.