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

[Thanda]

"Inherently less valuable".

What a horrible thing to say about a fellow human being.

The Apartheid hell you to be "inherently less valuable" then your white rulers. That's the point he's trying to get at with "_______'s gotta know their place". To say that a fellow human being is less valuable (and inherently so) are powerful words with far reaching implications. It is abhorrent regardless if those words are directed at race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

More strawnmen. When did I ever refer to another human being as being less valuable?

 

[Thanda]

For the ten thousandth time: what about infertile heterosexual couples? They can't have children with each other either, but they CAN adopt, use a surrogate, or utilise artifical insemination: just like homosexual couples can.

I've already addressed why I believe heterosexual marriages are important even when there is infertility. I cannot keep repeating myself.

 

[Thanda]

Actually, you didn't say "the primary purpose". You said:

Excuse me. By close association with the worth and purpose of a marriage I meant making love the primary purpose.

 

[Thanda]

...

I'm gonna assume you're a woman, because your name(Thanda) seems feminine to me, so if you aren't I'm sorry but;

Do you...miss being property or something?

Assumption is the mother of all... I'm a man

 

[Thanda]

And I clearly said that. The problem is that you regard having children as a virtue regardless of circumstance. Do you think that a teenage woman having a child, despite being on her own, jobless, with no support, no home or no understanding of how to raise a child, is a virtue? What about having a child with the sole intent of selling them into childhood slavery or prostitution? Virtuous? No. What is virtuous is raising a child in a loving home, not merely pumping a child out without regard for circumstance.

This paragraph is funny because my argument is about the superior value of a heterosexual marriage. What in the world makes you think I look kindly upon extramarital sex and pregnancy? There is nothing but trouble in that road. Hence my opinions about single parenthood.

But to have children is a virtue. And people should marry to do so.

No. Did I say that poor people lack the ability or resources to care for children?

I was just asking.

Agreed. Where did I assert that raising a child well meant raising them in a wealthy home?

Where did I say you made that assertion? I was simply making an observation that the apparent lack of resources someone has (bbeing poor) shouldn't lead us to the conclusion that they shouldn't be having children. It is a virtue for them to have children as well.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The difference is your unwillingness to accept a different opinion.

I, for one, can accept a different opinion, when that opinion is presented for logically sound reasons. I can have the opinion that marijuana is not bad for society but if I simply state that opinion because I like marijuana and can provide you no reason beyond that, then my opinion is worthless.

Your opinion is that homosexual marriage is less valuable than heterosexual marriage because of the natural "cycle of life" and childbirth. I have responded positively to your opinion, seeing a certain beauty in that opinion. That opinion you hold is based upon the opinion that the purpose of marriage is for procreation. If that is the purpose of your marriage, then that is the purpose of your marriage and I have no right to dictate to you what your marriage should mean to you. Where the problems come, however, is that I have a different opinion on the purpose of marriage and that is a lifelong, committed relationship where gender is not an issue. Yet you would claim that my purpose of marriage, because it is different than yours, is less valuable than yours. The unwillingness to accept a different opinion is yours.

But to have children is a virtue. And people should marry to do so.

Then by your sentiment, if a gay man or woman must take a sibling, niece, nephew, grandparent, cousin etc. into their home when they are in need of that home, then the gay man or woman should marry; as it is beneficial for that child to have 2 caretakers with 2 different perspectives on life to share the duties of child rearing. While I do not wholeheartedly accept this opinion, I can see virtue in this opinion; but it is definitely your opinion; so when there are children in the home, by your standards, gays should marry; and now that this child is in the care of that gay couple, that gay marriage now has all the value as heterosexual marriage. These are your own opinions from a different perspective.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Ah, the good old strawman. You're serving them in doubles I see. Where in any of my comments did I extol the virtues of marriage for political gain? Or perhaps according to you if a marriage is not solely for love then it must be for political gain?

Speaking of strawmen, where did I say that reasons for marriage were either love or political gain? I was using marriages made for political gain as a specific example; not saying they were the only kind of marriages made.

Secondly how does me saying that making romantic love the primary purpose of marriage devalues it suddenly become "llove devalues marriage"?

How does it not? You're saying that by orienting marriage around feelings of love marriage becomes less valuable as a result than if it were oriented around something else like baby-making.

 

[Thanda]

Speaking of strawmen, where did I say that reasons for marriage were either love or political gain? I was using marriages made for political gain as a specific example; not saying they were the only kind of marriages made.

Where did I say you said marriages are either love or marriage. I merely asked you a question.

How does it not? You're saying that by orienting marriage around feelings of love marriage becomes less valuable as a result than if it were oriented around something else like baby-making.

Frat parties don't devalue universities. But centering universities around frat parties devalues them. I hope this makes things clear.

 

[Ingledsva]

Remember I said inherently. Marriage between a man and a woman doesn't inherently have the impossibility of having children with each other. Abnormalities cause the infertility. You're trying to compare an exception with a rule. It is an exception that some heterosexual couples can't have children. It is a rule that homosexual couples can't have children with each other. So if you consider having children a virtue then it stands to reason that gay marriage is inherently inferior.

Same with single parenthood. Two heads are better than one. That is a rule. There are exceptions to that of course. Poverty in single parent homes is a rule - far more than it is in two parent homes. Unless you can show that the rise in single parent families has contributed positively to your society you have to admit that single parent homes are inherently inferior to two parent homes.

Pure bull - you are looking for any excuse to push your prejudice!

PS. Did you forget that Gay marriage has two people to raise children?

*

 

[oldbadger]

He specifically said that his view is not based on Bible exegesis. He said his rule is based on modern revelation. In other words he is saying his view is based on what God is teaching today, not what he taught thousands of years ago.

.....Oh? So God changed his/her mind?
..... Now wjhere did he find those new rules....?

 

[oldbadger]

I have stated it before, it devalues marriage. Let us take an MBA for example. There are certain requirements to getting one. It is valued because we all know what it takes to have it and we know it is not easy. We know that a person with that certification can do certain things and can contribute in a specific way to a company and society as a whole. Marriage used to be similar. It used to speak to the circle of life. The continuation, increase and progress of the human family. It raised hopes for the rise of a new generation. That's why in almost every culture - even where marriages are arranged and there is no love involved - marriages are usually the biggest festivals and are celebrated greatly. The hype is died down in recent years, especially in western culture. People get married but don't want to have children. Cheating is no longer considered a crime. A husband has no duties to his wife and a wife has no duties to her husband. You can get divorced for any reason. Indeed gay marriage is quite a late arrival to the devaluation of marriage. But it does devalue it nevertheless.

Utter rubbish....
Marriage has, only just today, become more special in the USA.
The chance for people in love to marry and live together in married unity. So special.
And the new law applies to all States, so that's that. !!

 

[Ingledsva]

.... It used to speak to the circle of life. The continuation, increase and progress of the human family. It raised hopes for the rise of a new generation. That's why in almost every culture - even where marriages are arranged and there is no love involved - marriages are usually the biggest festivals and are celebrated greatly. The hype is died down in recent years, especially in western culture. People get married but don't want to have children. Cheating is no longer considered a crime. A husband has no duties to his wife and a wife has no duties to her husband. You can get divorced for any reason. Indeed gay marriage is quite a late arrival to the devaluation of marriage. But it does devalue it nevertheless.

Indeed, I am of the opinion that the close association of the worth and purpose of marriage with romantic love has also contributed to the devaluation of marriage.

I have to ask - with the kind of replies you are giving - especially the ones with- no love - duties, - must have different genitalia, - must pop out babies ,- and no right to divorce, etc. -

Are you a Muslim male? Or were you raised Muslim, or in an Islamic country?

*

 

[muichimotsu]

Your most glaring mistake is making assumptions. I did not say people don't think it is bad. I said it is no longer a crime. Marriage was once held in such high regard that adultery was outlawed. Then the law was removed but you could still file a civil suite. Now (at least in my country) the courts have decided it is longer valid to sue for Adultery. And yet you are allowed to sue your own spouse.

Having children is a choice based on priorities. If having children is very important to you, then few circumstances can prevent from having them and making the necessary sacrifices. If your career or holidays or free time is most important, then deciding to have children can become a big challenge.

It never should've been a crime: appealing to a traditional notion of crime isn't helping your case, you're not even making an argument as to why it should be a crime.

Adultery is more a personal matter to be reconciled than something the state should get involved in. Divorce is the most they can do in regards to adultery, so I think you should be satisfied that it's still considered something that necessitates action of some kind.

And so what if some people want to advance career or holidays, even just temporarily? Is it wrong or insulting marriage for them to do so?

 

[muichimotsu]

If you believe marriage is mainly about love then I understand the position that you take. But you will note that in all my arguments I have not once mentioned the word love. Indeed, I am of the opinion that the close association of the worth and purpose of marriage with romantic love has also contributed to the devaluation of marriage. A young couple may well ask, "If marriage is about love then why should we get married? We already love each other. Marriage won't make us love each other more. So what is the point?". It can be easily observed that many couple have already asked themselves these sort of questions and it has contributed to the rise of co-habitation.

Are you really suggesting we go back to arranged marriages and treating women like property to be exchanged between families? Because that's practically teh only solution if you want to say love has devalued it as an institution rather than edifying it.

Marriage is not about making love somehow more persistent, but it reflects that the love is strong and has moved beyond mere sentiment to a desire of commitment.

Cohabitation is not always an alternative to marriage, but a precursor to it. I could cohabit with my fiancee, for example, or my gf and we could plan to get married. How is that wrong if it's meant to ascertain compatibility?

 

[muichimotsu]

Who said anything about your marriage becoming illegitimate. I said a fertility in heterosexual couples is valuable because the can bring forth children. Those children need to be raised of their born. So the marriage continues to be of worth after that couple leaves their child bearing years - what would we do without grand parents!

Stop trying to side-step the issue. You know as well as I do that the vast majority of marriages happen during people's child bearing years (that more and more are happening outside this period as a result of divorce and delaying marriage is merely an indication that society has long been on the road to devaluing marriage). You know as well as I do that without heterosexual couple humanity would be in deep trouble. Therefore heterosexual couples have an inherent value that exceeds those of homosexual couple.

Not all biological parents are fit to be parents in the more essential sense. Adoption exists because the state can deem a parent unfit to raise their child, even if they have a biological link.

Without grandparents, there's godparents, to say nothing of aunts and uncles that can serve as a support structure.


If people are still getting married, there isn't a strict devaluation, unless you're reducing it purely to statistics, which is ludicrous.

Homosexual couples are identical in the ways that matter for marriage in its essence, which isn't fixated on childbearing, but family as a more dynamic structure that can include children raised by gay parents in particular. An inability to have children is in no way a factor exclude someone from being married, straight or gay.

 

[muichimotsu]

Having children is a virtue as without having the it is impossible to raise them (which you admit is a virtue). Without having children the human race would die off. Since the human race continuing in a virtue, having children is a virtue.

No one is saying we shouldn't keep having children, but moderation is key here, especially with population density getting higher, even in a country that is probably 3-5x the size of South Africa by comparison.

Having children is not a virtue in itself, but a benefit to the human species. Some people treat children as purely items to show off, so you cannot say it is inherently a virtue with people exploiting childbearing as an excuse to appeal to people's sentiments.

 

[muichimotsu]

You should see the two as one. It's out of lust that you say there is such a thing as male and female. Lust that has been taught through the teaching of the world. The underlying reason why people are against same sex marriage is because they are lustful. Instead of seeing the two as one, they see them as male and female. They're lustful, therefore, they want to see the genitals because that is what they 'fall on' through their own marriages. That's the basic premise of their marriage is their genitals. Instead of realizing intimate love shared by two people or whatever, they see their own faults by looking at their own genitals and their partners genitals. They have effectively divided the sexes.

My personal libido is irrelevant to the logical consideration that in marriage, male and female are not entirely relevant to whether they should be considered legally recognized.

Now you're not making any sense: I'm lustful, thus I support gay marriage, but you also say people that are lustful are against gay marriage.

By your logic here, you should be supporting gay marriage, because it reflects something rising above lust to focus on intimate love shared by two people in a committed union. Wouldn't that be better for all people for gay people to see how good marriage is?

 

[muichimotsu]

That gay people can act as care givers to children is admirable. But their relationship to each other doesn't continue the circle of life. Therefore their relationship to each other doesn't have the same inherent value that most heterosexual relationships would have. Therefore I personally feel they are of inferior value inherently. Likewise single parent families are inherently inferior. Statistics show this. Yes they can be assisted by government grants and other interventions, but inherently they are inferior.

Adding an inferior product to the mix dissolves and weakens the initial product. Marriage is weakened by the inclusion of same sex marriage

If they raise children, they are contributing in raising a child to potentially have children of their own.

I've already shown you how foolish the notion of solely biological and gender dimorphic parents don't always benefit the child, perhaps you might see that something being different doesn't automatically make it inferior.

 

[muichimotsu]

Gays can't have kids with each other (within the confines of their gay relationships). That is a fact. And yes gays not having children will not leave the world in trouble. I did not say it will. What I did say was that their relationships are inherently less valuable to the world than heterosexual relationships. Therefore their relationships being given the title of marriage devalues marriage.



A relationship is between two people. Marriage is not just between two people. If it was then we wouldn't be arguing on this forum. There is a reason why society doesn't celebrate and no is called to witness when two people declare that they love each other. Marriage is not about two people loving each other. It is about ensuring the safe and prosperous continuation of the human race. Make no mistake, governments do not offer married people special benefits because they believe in the "power of love".

No one said gay people could have children by their own intimate physical relations.

You seem to mistakenly attribute value of a couple to their childrearing capabilities, which is not only insulting to couples who cannot have children and try otherwise, but to those that are encouraging a value that allows marriage to persist: fidelity.

Marriage is not just about the familial aspects, though it is common: marriage is also about encouraging a particular structure in general of relationships: monogamous. This doesn't require children for it to be of value to society in the sense of making a lifelong commitment in legal terms.

 

[muichimotsu]

That it is different is important to me. It is important to me that homosexual couples need crutches and aids in order to do the things heterosexual couples naturally can. Hence my use of the word inherently.



Again my point is about the inherent superior value of a heterosexual union. Marriage was made for heterosexual unions. Expanding it to include homosexual unions devalues it.

Not all heterosexual couples naturally can have children, so the notion of some innate property is undermined by that obvious fact. And inherent properties don't mean that they must be actualized. I may be able to father children, but I don't want to (unless a sperm bank wants my sperm because I'm so great or something like that, and even then, I wouldn't want to meet them unless there was a contract involved)

Marriage was initially made for political and economic gain, it's evolved past that, is that so hard to comprehend?