Marriage

[Cu Chulainn]

Were there not americans prior to the signing of the consitution? Yes. If the vast majority wanted to further amend or even set aside the consitution, do you not think the people could do so?

So, if "No, society does not form its own morality" then exactly who does? No, my dear igloo, societies do indeed set their own morality. Just like whats moral for say, in an African society, may be moral for them, but not for our society, is just the plain truth of the matter. Likewise, what may be moral for you and your wife to do in Vegas, may not be so moral to the Amish in Pennsylvania.

I am one who tends to believe that morality ultimately stems from religion, not vice versa.

That you do not understand how morality could exist without religion leads me to believe that you lack the capacity to form your own moral arguments without having them spoon fed to you by dogma and convention. This is truly sad. That an american believes that the will of the majority is always right is sadder still.

 

[Sidhe]

Were there not americans prior to the signing of the consitution? Yes. If the vast majority wanted to further amend or even set aside the consitution, do you not think the people could do so?

Just because a civillisation maintains that it's moral code is right does not make it so. Otherwise almost all civilisations would have been morally upstanding.

So, if "No, society does not form its own morality" then exactly who does? No, my dear igloo, societies do indeed set their own morality. Just like whats moral for say, in an African society, may be moral for them, but not for our society, is just the plain truth of the matter. Likewise, what may be moral for you and your wife to do in Vegas, may not be so moral to the Amish in Pennsylvania.

Well God according to you, people are divinly inspired by their Gods: proving that your divine inspiration is real, now there's the rub.

I am one who tends to believe that morality ultimately stems from religion, not vice versa.

If morality stems from religion then before religion there was no morality, this is a suposition and highly questionable. Let's just say it's not logically consistant with the development of the first religions, because mother Earth, other nature religions and religions based on examining the issues of life and death are hard to find. And their beliefs are based on archeology and suposition. Did their societies devolop morale codes and laws against imorality before they had religion, seems likely since morality must of existed before we could talk, and in fact do exist in lower order mammals.

If they are wrong though then the religions that lead to organised relgions are in fact based on moral ideas stemming from mans philosophies and not on a God figure, you could argue there morality was stemming from God, but then you'd have to except that pagan religions could be moral, the truth is that if God made morality the first religions should have worshiped God and they didn't, that much is obvious. I'm no philosopher but the idea that all morals come from religion to me is illogical. The egg of morality came before the religious chicken, unless you believe animals are inspired to morality by God, in which case you could go on all night and convince no one but yourself .

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I can't vote in the poll as it doesn't allow multiple options and my vote isn't there. I believe marriage should be between two people man-woman, man-man, or woman-woman.

 

[Truronian]

There has been and is no need to formally copyright marriage because the meaning of the word marriage pre-dates copyright law; and its recorded use for one man-one woman relationships for over a thousand years of english speaking people has effectively established a de facto moral copyright.

Rubbish. Why on earth would you allow homosexuals all the same rights as heterosexuals and then forbit them from using the word marriage? Sounds to me like a strange attempt at a 1up on homosexuals.

 

[MobBoss]

That you do not understand how morality could exist without religion leads me to believe that you lack the capacity to form your own moral arguments without having them spoon fed to you by dogma and convention. This is truly sad. That an american believes that the will of the majority is always right is sadder still.

You are free to believe anything you want. Personally I challenge you to give me an example of a moral society that exists without religion.

As for the majority being always right - not quite what I said. I said society itself dictates that which is right and moral. That changes from one society to another. But that does not change the fact that any given society sets its own rules....and in a representative democracy its always the majority that elects its leaders to carry out the will of the majority.

 

[Sidhe]

There must be word for this in philosophy, in science it would be an unprovable statement and would be dismissed out of hand:-

A moral society cannot exist without religion, but there are no such societies, therefore, you can make the conclusion that no irreligous society can function moraly without religion, based on the evidence of? Precisely a dead end question.

 

[puglover]

If morality stems from religion then before religion there was no morality, this is a suposition and highly questionable. Let's just say it's not logically consistant with the development of the first religions, because mother Earth, other nature religions and religions based on examining the issues of life and death are hard to find. And their beliefs are based on archeology and suposition. Did their societies devolop morale codes and laws against imorality before they had religion, seems likely since morality must of existed before we could talk, and in fact do exist in lower order mammals.

If they are wrong though then the religions that lead to organised relgions are in fact based on moral ideas stemming from mans philosophies and not on a God figure, you could argue there morality was stemming from God, but then you'd have to except that pagan religions could be moral, the truth is that if God made morality the first religions should have worshiped God and they didn't, that much is obvious. I'm no philosopher but the idea that all morals come from religion to me is illogical. The egg of morality came before the religious chicken, unless you believe animals are inspired to morality by God, in which case you could go on all night and convince no one but yourself .

I think he means that morality comes from the God whom the religion worships, not the religion itself. And I agree, God is the source of all things, including morality, which is the standard set by his own nature and character.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

You do know that once it was aginast the law and against most people's common sense for homosexuality.. My point is that relying on human law is often futlie because it often changes and thus we must be relying on a stronger set of foundations.

Bold by me.

I do understand and that is why we don't have laws chiseled into stone anymore, but allow for the law to evolve as we become more advanced and are able to shed our prejudice. Slavery and having your wife as a property that you could beat are illustrative examples of bad laws we have discarded.

I personally don't see relying on human law as futile at all. I'll willingly admit it isn't perfect, but its ability to change and adopt I see as a strength, not a weakness. May of today's modern ethical questions aren't really covered by older obsolete religious laws. What's the bible's position on intellectual property rights of digital photos posted on the internet for example? How about real estate claims for particular pieces of property on the moon? What's the bible law say about how we should divide the bandwidth of the public broadcast frequencies?

New points of law will always come up and we will have to face them and adapt to them as they do.

Sorry, but I dont see embracing such behavior as homosexuality as equating to being "advanced". Homosexuals are not slaves and they are not property. Btw, wives have never been property in the law of the United States as far as I can recall.

By 'advanced' I mean cultural and technology. I gave some examples of new advances for which we are just now working on the laws to cover them.

If I understood classical_hero correctly he seemed to mean a return to laws based far earlier than the formation of the United States (he's of course an Aussie). My guess was he would prefer a return based on laws more in sync with his christian religion, which is why I included both slavery and the 'wives as property' as the bible includes obsolete and discriminatory laws on both of these subjects.

 

[Turner]

I also see news about priests sexually molesting little boys...does that mean all priests do it? Nope. Your point is invalid.

You have awed me with your master debating skills!

Obviously you're not getting the point. And my attempts to educate you have fallen short of thier lesson. :sigh:

 

[The Yankee]

Anyone happen to see last night's O'Reilly Factor? I caught the 4 AM EST re-run last night, with the argument over what happens to marriage when "marriage is de-emphasized" as O'Reilly put it in several European countries that have had homosexual marriages legal for quite some time. He had two authors of this book that attempts to show that allowing homosexual marriage has become a boon for heterosexual marriage as well, even though I think homosexual marriage should be a stand-alone argument.

Anyway, here was the website for that book, which has its own arguments there: http://islandia.law.yale.edu/GayMarriageBook/

I have not read into it, but thought it might be interesting to add to this thread.

 

[IglooDame]

meant to wuote mob boss here..oops...im in a rush lol]

Unless it's sanctioned by the APA or AMA, don't bother. You could be treading on a ROC violation oherwise.

Ummm... huh?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Anyone happen to see last night's O'Reilly Factor? I caught the 4 AM EST re-run last night, with the argument over what happens to marriage when "marriage is de-emphasized" as O'Reilly put it in several European countries that have had homosexual marriages legal for quite some time. He had two authors of this book that attempts to show that allowing homosexual marriage has become a boon for heterosexual marriage as well, even though I think homosexual marriage should be a stand-alone argument.

Anyway, here was the website for that book, which has its own arguments there: http://islandia.law.yale.edu/GayMarriageBook/

I have not read into it, but thought it might be interesting to add to this thread.

Didn't see it on TV, but I managed to watch it online. The authors did a good job showing how gay marriage may have actually increased the rate of straight marriage in Scandanavian countries. There was a note that there was an increase in co-habitation without marriage, but that was blamed on a legal recognition of such. (O'Reilly seemed to believe that the increase in co-habitation was caused by the gay marriages.)

Makes sense to me. I don't see how two lesbians getting married has any impact on the thousands of other straight couples getting married. When I was about to be married, I wasn't thinking whether gays get married, and that it should somehow factor into my decision. I also don't get the conclusion. Even if heterosexuals actually considered the marriages of gays, why would allowing gays to marry de-emphasize marriage? You would think it would encourage MORE marriage, not less.

This is surely a religious objection. Christians regard marriage as a sacrament (which it wasn't until about the 10th century), so they object to gays marrying on those grounds. That's why you get a lot of talk about "civil unions" instead of "marriage", even though they amount to the same thing.

 

[Elrohir]

Marriage only between one man and one woman.

 

[blargh]

Ummm... huh?

That post was to Mobboss. I clicked the wrong post adn didn't have time to edit.

 

[toh6wy]

So does that mean you want me to get more proof that indeed same sex parents could be abusive just like heterosexual parents? Because it is undoubtedly out there, regardless of its lack or miniscule reporting via the news.

No, that's not good enough. Wouldn't you want to assert that same-sex parents are generally more abusive than heterosexual parents? If you find evidence that they "could be abusive," that says nothing about why children allegedly develop better with heterosexual parents.

 

[GenMarshall]

Funny, I just read in the paper that Bush still stands by on a Consitutional Ban on Marrage as well as the Vatican Condeming Contraception, Abortion, & Same-sex Marriage.

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo stated in his document that never before in history has human procreation, and therefore the family, which is it natural place, has been so threatened as i today's culture. Cardinal Alfonso sated that the natural institution of marrage should be protected and defined as a union between a man and a woman. Cardinal Alfonso continues in his document that "Couples made up of homosexuals claim similar rights to thoes reserved to husban and wife; they even claim the right to adoption. Women who live a lesbian union claim similar rights, demanding laws which gives them acess to hetero fertilization or embryo implantation (IVF is also against the Church's teachings but thats another topic for another day). Moreover it is clamed that the help of the law to form these unusual couples goes hand in hand with the help to divorce and repudiate."

More on "Vatican condems gay marrage"

 

[BCLG100]

i think you can marry whoever you want

 

[Sidhe]

I agree BCLG100.

Civ General would you accept a union if it was merely to give a person the same rights as a heterosexual couple, no religous implication just a right to be treated equally? Would this conflict with the objections of your church and if so why?

 

[GenMarshall]

Civ General would you accept a union if it was merely to give a person the same rights as a heterosexual couple, no religous implication just a right to be treated equally? Would this conflict with the objections of your church and if so why?

(Is it just me or are everyone's spell checker separating my nick? )

I would not accept a union because it is accepting an immoral activity (which is same-gender sex). Accepting a homosexual union conflicts with the objections of the Catholic Church and I have posted numerous quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Paragraph 2358 “….Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

"For two members of the same sex to have genital relations violates the nature of who they are in relation to one another. Their bodies are simply not designed for it. Something is out of sync." - Fr. Vincent Serpa

 

[Smidlee]

Where's the marriage between man and radioactive monkey option? If a man going to live like an animal, might as well marry one.
Why not get rid of government all together and live in anarchy... everyone do what right in their own eyes?