Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Hindu Marriage Moral
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 1 of 108 (332599)
07-17-2006 4:01 PM


I have been reading the Is Gay Marriage Immoral thread with some interest. Now I understand that Christians think that homosexuality is immoral. What I don't understand is why homosexuals are being persecuted over this more than many other people who lead equally immoral lifestyles according to the bible.
The first commandment clearly states that "you shall have no other gods before me". Hindus not only have other gods before "him", they have upwards of 3 million other gods at the exclusion of "him"!. Why are hindus allowed to marry with no fuss whatsoever? Are the Hindus allowed to flout that commandment?
Now I'm sure you can claim that Hindus aren't Christian and so would obviously not pay that Commandment any heed, but then gay people aren't Christian either (well not exclusively). Why are they forced to Christian standards when other groups aren't?
(Note that this isn't the place to discuss whether or not gay marriage is immoral, that more suited to the Is Gay Marriage Immoral thread )
Edited by happy_atheist, : Added url tags around "Is Gay Marriage Immoral"

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ramoss, posted 07-17-2006 5:03 PM happy_atheist has not replied
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 07-17-2006 5:59 PM happy_atheist has replied
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2006 9:02 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
AdminFaith
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 108 (332618)
07-17-2006 4:57 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 3 of 108 (332621)
07-17-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by happy_atheist
07-17-2006 4:01 PM


Hindu marriage, IMO, has some immoral elements to it. It is not immoral in their culture though.
The introduction of the 'dowery' I feel is very immoral, and has caused some destructive behavior in that culture such as killing of brides if they weren't paid in full, aborting female fetuses,and poor families much more willing to sell young girls to 'prostitution rings' that are in the cities'.
The bride price is a relatively new introductoin into the culture, and one I hope goes away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by happy_atheist, posted 07-17-2006 4:01 PM happy_atheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 07-17-2006 5:06 PM ramoss has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 4 of 108 (332623)
07-17-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ramoss
07-17-2006 5:03 PM


The introduction of the 'dowery' I feel is very immoral, and has caused some destructive behavior in that culture such as killing of brides if they weren't paid in full, aborting female fetuses,and poor families much more willing to sell young girls to 'prostitution rings' that are in the cities'.
However Bride Price is also inherent in both Judaism and Christianity.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ramoss, posted 07-17-2006 5:03 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by ramoss, posted 07-17-2006 5:19 PM jar has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 5 of 108 (332627)
07-17-2006 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
07-17-2006 5:06 PM


Yes, and it thankfully is no longer in there. In Judaism, and christianity, as far as I know, it did not cause the destructiveness that it currently in hinduism. It might be that hinduism grows out of the destructive behavior. Time will tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 07-17-2006 5:06 PM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 6 of 108 (332639)
07-17-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by happy_atheist
07-17-2006 4:01 PM


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.
Christians infer from the Bible that marriage was established by God in Eden, so that the universality of its practice comes from God whether God is known in the culture or not.
What I don't understand is why homosexuals are being persecuted over this more than many other people who lead equally immoral lifestyles according to the bible.
{edit: 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, which makes them a political issue. However, there are other sins, as you suggest, that are also being supported by the nation that shouldn't be. Easy divorce for instance. Legal accommodations to cohabiting but unmarried couples for instance.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by happy_atheist, posted 07-17-2006 4:01 PM happy_atheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by docpotato, posted 07-17-2006 6:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 8 by happy_atheist, posted 07-18-2006 5:17 PM Faith has replied
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2006 10:00 PM Faith has replied
 Message 18 by RickJB, posted 07-19-2006 10:48 AM Faith has replied

  
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5048 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 7 of 108 (332646)
07-17-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
07-17-2006 5:59 PM


However, there are other sins, as you suggest, that are also being supported by the nation that shouldn't be.
Allowing, nay, encouraging a plurality of religions...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 07-17-2006 5:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 8 of 108 (333009)
07-18-2006 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
07-17-2006 5:59 PM


However, there are other sins, as you suggest, that are also being supported by the nation that shouldn't be.
Well my main point in this thread is why are no groups trying to make these other things illegal? I've never heard of any serious opposition to Hindu marriage. I've never even heard any opposition to people being Hindu.
Now sure forced marriage is frowned upon (and rightly so in my opinion), but that is completely different to frowning on people being Hindu. That is no less immoral than homosexuality as far as I can tell from the Bible. If anything I'd say it is more so (and the same goes for just about any other religion). But these other religions get all the same support and tax breaks and rights as Christianity. I'm just surprised there is no objection to this.

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 9 by Omnivorous, posted 07-18-2006 9:32 PM happy_atheist has not replied
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 07-18-2006 9:43 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 9 of 108 (333109)
07-18-2006 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by happy_atheist
07-18-2006 5:17 PM


What about D-I-V-O-R-C-E?
But these other religions get all the same support and tax breaks and rights as Christianity. I'm just surprised there is no objection to this.
Excellent point.
One also wonders why the throng is not at the gate to dissolve divorce courts--those petitioners are seeking to make the rest of us (the State) subsidize an activity rejected by many (at least in theory ).
Perhaps these are among the "other sins...that are also being supported by the nation that shouldn't be" that Faith mentions.

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by happy_atheist, posted 07-18-2006 5:17 PM happy_atheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 07-19-2006 7:36 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 10 of 108 (333114)
07-18-2006 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by happy_atheist
07-18-2006 5:17 PM


Well my main point in this thread is why are no groups trying to make these other things illegal? I've never heard of any serious opposition to Hindu marriage. I've never even heard any opposition to people being Hindu.
I thought I was clear that marriage is right because it was given by God in Eden, no matter what culture it exists in or what the people believe. Christians certainly argue that Hinduism is a false religion, but it doesn't affect the meaning of marriage.
Now sure forced marriage is frowned upon (and rightly so in my opinion), but that is completely different to frowning on people being Hindu. That is no less immoral than homosexuality as far as I can tell from the Bible.
That is true, but nobody is arguing that people can't be either Hindu or homosexual, what is argued is that marriage is a union of male and female and homosexual marriage destroys the very meaning of marriage.
If anything I'd say it is more so (and the same goes for just about any other religion). But these other religions get all the same support and tax breaks and rights as Christianity. I'm just surprised there is no objection to this.
There would be if we were a Christian theocracy, but we're not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by happy_atheist, posted 07-18-2006 5:17 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 108 (333121)
07-18-2006 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
07-17-2006 5:59 PM


Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
"thou shalt not kill\murder" is one of the commandments, IIRC
the US military action in Iraq is regularly killing and murdering innocent victims EVERY DAY.
the US military is supported by my taxes and it's actions are "legitimization" by the current administration
homosexuals are demanding government legitimization of their unions which would put the nation in complicit sin with them, which makes them a political issue. However, there are other sins, as you suggest, that are also being supported by the nation that shouldn't be.
deal with ALL the issues, not just your personal HOT BUTTON issues or be a hypocrit.
Christians infer from the Bible that marriage was established by God in Eden, so that the universality of its practice comes from God whether God is known in the culture or not.
Similar religious "inferences" can be made for any religion and for any secular union based on whatever creed or belief one chooses. That you can infer it (note: no direct reference? it has to be inferred???) does not make it EXCLUSIVE to christianity. That is false logic.
Hindu Marriage is completely and unquestionably moral in every sense of the word, as is every other kind of marriage.
The part of Marriage that is of concern to any government is that it is a contract between consenting individuals to love, honor and respect each other, in sickness and in health, to share, to help each other. It is not about sex and it is not about procreation.
Easy divorce for instance.
Yes, it should be much more difficult for a woman to divorce an abusive husband, hopefully until long after he has killed her eh?
Legal accommodations to cohabiting but unmarried couples for instance.
You mean people who CAN get married but choose NOT to, as compared to homosexuals who CAN'T get married even IF they want to?
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.
Poppycock.
There have been many societies where mating has been intentionally "shared" with others outside of a {pair bond} so that it is not an exclusive "uniting of male and female":
Some South American Cultures Have Partible Paternity:
Men’s reproductive interests are best served by male control over female sexual behavior. To do this, men must choose the spouses either for themselves or their children, marriage must be for life, female promiscuity is forbidden, and support networks of women for women are disrupted or male support by other than a husband and his family is forbidden.
In cultures where women choose their mates, women have broad sexual freedom and partible paternity is accepted, women clearly have the upper hand. In societies where women’s sexual activity is controlled by men, marriage is exclusive and male sexual jealousy is a constant threat, men have the upper hand. In between is a full range of combinations and options, all represented in the varying South American cultures depicted in the book.
I also remember a report about a culture in New Guinea where it was believed that a boy could not become a man until he had had sex with one of the men in the tribe.
I found a reference to it in wikipedia:
Homosexuality - Wikipedia
In many societies of Melanesia same-sex relationships are an integral part of the culture. Traditional Melanesian insemination rituals also existed where a boy, upon reaching a certain age would be paired with an older adolescent who would become his mentor and whom he would ritually fellate over a number of years in order to develop his own masculinity. In certain tribes of Papua New Guinea, for example, it is considered a normal ritual responsibility for a boy to have a relationship in order to accomplish his ascent into manhood. Many Melanesian societies, however, have become hostile towards same-sex relationships since the introduction of Christianity by European missionaries.
(bold mine for empHASis)
Note that the article discusses the pervasive traditions recognizing homosexual relationships in many societies around the world. Ignoring the equal recognition of homosexual relations in other cultures while only focusing on the heterosexual relations in other cultures is denying the evidence that exists.
And then there were some cultures that did NOT have ANY institution of marriage:
A Society without Fathers or Husbands: The Na of China (an unbiased book review)
This one culture, btw, disproves completely your assertion that marriage "is universal, has always existed in all cultures and all religions at all times"
Each of these unions is just as moral as any other. You do NOT get to choose the morals of other people.
And in America, we have (supposedly) the freedom of having any belief ... not just ones we would like everyone to have.
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 6 by Faith, posted 07-17-2006 5:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 07-18-2006 10:47 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 108 (333137)
07-18-2006 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
07-18-2006 10:00 PM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
The rare exception certainly proves the rule. Nobody said homosexuality is rare, just homosexual marriage. "Having a relationship" is not marriage.
So there is every kind of perversion on earth, perversion of marriage, perversion of sex, so what? The human race is fallen, a bunch of sinners. What's new there? What's your point? The point of having laws is to restrain it as much as possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2006 10:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2006 11:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2006 8:07 PM Faith has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 108 (333146)
07-18-2006 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
07-18-2006 10:47 PM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
The rare exception certainly proves the rule.
Exceptions don't prove rules; they disprove them.

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 14 by Faith, posted 07-18-2006 11:40 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 14 of 108 (333149)
07-18-2006 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
07-18-2006 11:25 PM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
SSOoooooooooooooo clever. 20 billion cultures that have hetero marriage, one that also has homo marriage. Sure do disprove the rule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2006 11:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2006 7:07 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2006 8:06 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 17 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-19-2006 10:34 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 26 by nator, posted 07-19-2006 7:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 15 of 108 (333227)
07-19-2006 7:07 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.
Wrong again. Several cultures that recognize homosexual relations as well as heterosexual relations, ie - several that deal honestly with the spectrum of human sexual inclinations.
The point is that only focusing on hetero relations in these cultures and ignoring the homosexual relations in them in order to quote a statistic that every culture has heterosexual relations (that you can then equate with "marriage") in them is using only PART of the data for the evidence and IGNORING the other part that CONTRADICTS the premise. This is a logical fallacy.
Sure do disprove the rule.
You said universal in every culture. So ONE culture that does NOT have ANY marriage entrenched in it not only contradicts your claim it INVALIDATES it. Your claim:
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.
Is false and has been proved false by the evidence.
Now you could be honest and admit that this one culture makes your claim false, or you can continue to try to equivocate.
Your choice.
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 14 by Faith, posted 07-18-2006 11:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024