Polygamy, right or wrong?

[Berzerker]

Aren't there Jewish traditions claiming Eve was Adam's 2nd wife? Lilith was the 1st and that was the 1st divorce too

 

[MobBoss]

Right, but like I said, Jesus doesn't seem to think that this suggestion applies to everyone, and there might be natural reasons why it doesn't apply.

@El mac, they must have 'accidentaly' left that out on the site I found that, and all those people who quote that must be unaware of that part. As was I. Thanks!

Dont get your context in an uproar. That simply means that marriage is not for everyone, so that example of a Godly union between husband and wife wont really apply to them. Its not an endorsement or an open door for SSM in any context. Later on in the New Testament, Paul has some words to say on it as well. Point being, some people are called upon to be single (or singly devoted to God) for their life....Jesus comments in regards to a Godly union isnt a command to get married, its simply an example of what a Godly marriage is.

 

[Berzerker]

yup, thats how I read it too... but at the same time Jesus said it aint the basis for a law or policy, those who can accept the message are to do so and those who cant or wont are not obliged.

 

[El_Machinae]

Aren't there Jewish traditions claiming Eve was Adam's 2nd wife? Lilith was the 1st and that was the 1st divorce too

That seems to be fitting the "divorce the prude" policy some people have regarding spouses that aren't interested in sex.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Actually, in Jewish folklore (which has very little to do with actual scripture or theology) Adam and Lilith broke up because Lilith insisted on playing the dominant role in sex.

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah, I was just going to say, Lilith wasnt ever protrayed as 'the prude'. If anything, she was supposed to be the exact opposite....

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why are race and religion of any importance in marriage?

I'd say race isn't, but religion can be, although I will say that all of the Christian churches that I'm aware of do hold the marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian is still theologically possible, even though many of them hold that it should not happen, once it happens, its still done. In any case, neither of the above goes against the idea of what marriage is, which is a union between a man and a woman who are in love with one another, join together for life, and unify both physically AND emotionally.

@MisterCooper- Race has NEVER theologically mattered in marriage. The reason it did was because people were prejudiced. There is NOTHING in the Bible that condemns marriage between people of the race. There ARE Biblical passages condemning Christians marrying non-Christians, but this is always addressed from a "You shouldn't do it, but once it is done, it is valid" type of perspective, so interreligious marriage is still possible and so should still be recognized.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, isn't actually possible.

Why is sex/gender of any importance in marriage?

Because two men cannot biologically have sex, its unnatural, and the government should not recognize an unnatural institution as being a natural institution. I'm fine with them having the same legal benefits, but it CANNOT be called marriage because it is objectively not, and moral relativism doesn't fly.

 

[Hygro]

Ghostwriter did you just have a recent and long conversation on this subject with one of the more conservative persons in your own life? Because you just tacked about 10 paces to the right from your last position on this.

 

[Berzerker]

so Adam and Lilith broke up over...huh?

thats gotta be a mistranslation

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Actually, in Jewish folklore (which has very little to do with actual scripture or theology) Adam and Lilith broke up because Lilith insisted on playing the dominant role in sex.

I like how both the first and second woman told God to shove in one way or the other. These girls were feisty.

Odd that men got balls. God must not have seen that one coming.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, isn't actually possible.

In that case I must have been imagining a marriage I attended to.

Because two men cannot biologically have sex

Yes they can.

its unnatural

No it isn't.

and the government should not recognize an unnatural institution as being a natural institution.

So they shouldn't recognize a human construct as marriage at all. I can go with that.

I'm fine with them having the same legal benefits, but it CANNOT be called marriage because it is objectively not

There you go abusing that word again.

and moral relativism doesn't fly.

So that means I can completely ignore your post containing your opinion? You should have started with this.

 

[classical_hero]

Chapter and verse, man. I'm willing to listen. For what it's worth, I'm largely with Eran on this issue, but I don't think there's anything in the Gospels explicitly applicable to it.

I will link you to those times i have used it. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11348392#post11348392
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=10494184#post10494184
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6975888#post6975888

Actually Jesus does talk about marriage when he was confronted with the issue of Divorce. He even goes back an quote from Genesis 2:17 and 1:27 in both Matthew 19 and Mark 10

So simly look at Matthew 19:1-10 and Mark 10:1-9

Absolute preposterous bollocks.

No one is requiring you to marry a bloke.

The whole point of same sex marriage is to say it is exactly equal as an heterosexual marriage. It is just like saying stealing is just as moral as working. The two are exact opposites of each other. Every single society that descended into sexual moral decay finds out that the society itself loses its life and starts to decay unless someone reforms that said society from such wickedness. History is full of examples of nations dying away due to moral decay and not repenting of their sins.

 

[Synobun]

The whole point of same sex marriage is to say it is exactly equal as an heterosexual marriage. It is just like saying stealing is just as moral as working. The two are exact opposites of each other. Every single society that descended into sexual moral decay finds out that the society itself loses its life and starts to decay unless someone reforms that said society from such wickedness. History is full of examples of nations dying away due to moral decay and not repenting of their sins.

Saying marriage is the same as marriage is the same as saying thievery is the same as hard labour.

Would you like to change your answer or is it final?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The whole point of same sex marriage is to say it is exactly equal as an heterosexual marriage.

Yes it is.

It is just like saying stealing is just as moral as working.

What a load of bollocks. It's just like dropping a mind-numbingly inane analogy and then think you have made an argument.

The two are exact opposites of each other.

No they aren't.

Every single society that descended into sexual moral decay finds out that the society itself loses its life and starts to decay unless someone reforms that said society from such wickedness. History is full of examples of nations dying away due to moral decay and not repenting of their sins.

You can babble your moral decay nonsense all day long, which is ironic seeing how it's the denial of equality you champion that seems to me to be the moral decay, trying to make sense of your earlier statement:

The same could be said about those pushing for same sex marriage, since they are pushing their morals on us.

but it doesn't make it less bollocks since no one is pushing any morals upon you. You can still not marry any gays. Nothing will change for you.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with you. Be against it, argue against it, all fine. Don't come here and act as if you are the victim here. It's pathetic.

 

[Arwon]

IThe whole point of same sex marriage is to say it is exactly equal as an heterosexual marriage. It is just like saying stealing is just as moral as working. The two are exact opposites of each other. Every single society that descended into sexual moral decay finds out that the society itself loses its life and starts to decay unless someone reforms that said society from such wickedness. History is full of examples of nations dying away due to moral decay and not repenting of their sins.

Guys I've figured it out. He's a long con. This is satire.

 

[holy king]

satire is indistinguishable from fundamentalism.

 

[Hygro]

The whole point of same sex marriage is to say it is exactly equal as an heterosexual marriage. It is just like saying stealing is just as moral as working. The two are exact opposites of each other.

Classical Hero, let's slow down and play with some logic. I hope you are not color blind because I am using color.

Before we being:
First, let us assume that valid analogies are one correct way to make point. So far so good. Second, let's assume that that for an analogy to be valid, it has to be logically sound, and using definitions that are understood by the reader. For a statement to be logically sound it has to have both correct premises (those are our base assumptions) and has to be logically valid--which means the conclusions we draw from the premises follow the rules of logic. WRT using shared definitions of words, we have to make sure we are not using inappropriate jargon or unusual and overly specific definitions of the words we choose.

Okay, on to our exploration of logic as it applies to your post. Correct me at any point that I make a wrong assumption of what you meant or said.

The whole point of same sex marriage is to say it is exactly equal as an heterosexual marriage.

Ok, so far so good. Not exactly everyone's "whole point" but this is your argument. You back this up with the following analogy:

It is just like saying stealing is just as moral as working.

Ok, here is your analogy to back up your argument.

Stealing is just as moral as working. We can assume you mean this to be the analog to gay marriage is just as moral as straight marriage.

Let's look at "work" vs "steal". So, for your analogy to work, we will go with common definitions of both.

To work is to create, maintain, or add value. It adds to or prevents loss to the sum of the economy. We can assume the likely intent here is to say that "work adds to one's wealth by adding/creating new wealth". The second possibility, which is distinctly different, is to say "work is the moral method of acquiring wealth". The green option gives you a reason for immorality. Chiefly, that adding to overall wealth is a good thing. The navy blue option is logically circular so has no foundation. To be charitable, we will assume you mean the green option.

To steal is to unlawfully and/or immorally take away one party's property or work to give to another party. There are many, many routes we can take this. It is probably safe to infer you mean "stealing adds to one's wealth by subtracting/taking away someone else's wealth". And of course you might mean "stealing is the immoral method of acquiring wealth". For the same reasons as with "work", we assume you mean the former, greener option. We assume that removing wealth is a bad thing.

The key reasons then, for the moral difference in work vs steal is that one adds, and the other subtracts what's "good". We will now seek to show have straight marriage "adds a good thing" and gay marriage "subtracts a good thing".

So our current sentence could be "gay marriage is to straight marriage what adding a good thing is to subtracting a good thing"

In this analogy, "straight marriage" aka "opposite sex marriage" is one unit. "gay marriage" aka "same sex marriage" is a separate unit. In other words, in this analogy marriage by itself does not exist. If this does not make sense, please remember we are talking about logic.

Ok, onto definitions. Using common terms "straight marriage" is a partnership of households, sex, decision-making, and a commitment to the other partner's needs that occurs between two consenting adults of opposite sexes. In other words, its purpose is "to join together a woman and a man into one household for their betterment". In this, we assume, so as to be analogous, that "joins together" is the action akin to "adding" and the betterment is the positive desirable thing as was "wealth". Aka we can refer to both as "a good thing". For grammatical purposes, we will say union instead of "join together".

Our sentence can now be "gay marriage is to a good union what adding good is to subtracting good."

Gay marriage is well defined as a partnership of households, sex, decision-making, and a commitment to the other partner's needs that occurs between two consenting adults of the same sex. In other words, its purpose is to "to join together a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, into one household for their betterment" Hmmmm..... there seems to be an error here. But let's continue. We are operating that join together is good of the same vein that adding wealth is good.

For the analogy to hold, we would need to find the same relationship between adding good and subtracting good that we do between a good union and a good union. Since adding and subtracting are opposites, but a good union is the exact same thing as a good union.

Let's loop back a second. Another way of looking at the assumptions that underly the analogy reads as:
"If union, then adding
If adding adding, then good
If subtracting, then not good"

To continue, our current sentence has become "a good union is to a good union what adding good is to subtracting good.

We will now convert the colored terms to symbols. Good now equals A. Adding is now the plus sign "+". Subtracting is now the minus sign "-". Since union and adding are to be analogous, union is also a plus sign "+". We will use the We are out of things to symbolize. Your equation is this:

Upon if +A then not -A
then +A is to +A what +A is to -A.

That's logically impossible.

Since this is logically impossible, for you to reassert your logic you will need to redefine terms. Since we used basic and common terms, whether it's your terms or your logic, your analogy does not work.

In other words, you have four choices: the first three are: to redefine your terms, to change your analogy to "not stealing is to work what gay marriage is to straight marriage", or to change your analogy as "work is to work what gay marriage is to straight marriage".

The fourth option is to understand that your logic is false. If you have any other analogies that use the same application of logic, those will be false as well.

I hope you enjoyed our exploration. Which option do you choose?



disclaimer for all, post took me forever so I'm bound to have miss-typed. If you spot errors in details, lemme know and I will make corrections.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

But Hygro, his logic is different from yours. He... wait, I want to see if he can catch the difference first.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Hygro, I love you.

Because two men cannot biologically have sex

Only if you consider "penis enters vagina" as the only correct way of having sex. Quite funny if you don't think that for example anal sex isn't sex.

its unnatural

How do you define "natural?"

and the government should not recognize an unnatural institution as being a natural institution.

1. Why not?
2. Why should the government recognize any marriages?

I'm fine with them having the same legal benefits, but it CANNOT be called marriage because it is objectively not, and moral relativism doesn't fly.

The definition of marriage isn't as set in stone as you portray it, you may think of it as a union between a man and a woman while others may consider marriage a union between two or more people. Just because you have your own definition of marriage doesn't make it the right one (to be honest the same goes with those who think that two men can get married, but at least those people aren't preventing certain groups of people from getting married).

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

The definition of marriage isn't as set in stone as you portray it, you may think of it as a union between a man and a woman while others may consider marriage a union between two or more consenting adult people. Just because you have your own definition of marriage doesn't make it the right one (to be honest the same goes with those who think that two men can get married, but at least those people aren't preventing certain groups of people from getting married).

Just a slight correction.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hygro Hygro he's our man
If he can't do it, the other guy must be a very stubborn but otherwise not necessarily unfriendly person