Is Hindu Marriage Moral

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. {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.

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. 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. There would be if we were a Christian theocracy, but we're not.

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.

SSOoooooooooooooo clever. 20 billion cultures that have hetero marriage, one that also has homo marriage. Sure do disprove the rule.

I didn't forget anything. The OP asked why Christians don't object to Hindu marriage. I said why.

Expect? No. I'm afraid this sensible reason is scoffed at so that no, I expect nothing from scoffers.Religious reasons? Who said they were religious? if you are talking about gay marriage, I've argued from history, the weight of crosscultural practice over the millennia, not religion.Also, talking about gay marriage, the only "enacting" in question is the changing of millennia of practice to accommodate something that is immoral by MOST standards of MOST cultures all the way back.

It was shown. You all just ignore it and interpret it away.

Yes, I should have acknowledged that I was conceding the possisbility of some extremely rare, nearly nonexistent instances. Although in fact I haven't seen any. I beg your pardon. It's a marriage and you haven't proved otherwise. You are redefining my words to mean what YOU want them to mean. No. "Just a cultural expression" simply meant "not religious." "Cultural expression" implies something culturally SANCTIONED, LEGITIMATED, officially publically recognized etc. etc. etc. The "forms" it has taken refers to customs and to polygamous marriages -- still heterosexual. You can't decide that it's not a marriage but just "a relationship" to suit yourself when I obviously used it to describe a culturally legitimated nonreligious official marriage. I meant marriage, official, celebratory, public, culturally sanctioned, marriage. You are making it into something else. Into a mere "relationship?" Honestly, I have no idea what you are doing, just refusing to read simple English it seems to me. My definition of marriage is not falsified by anything you've said or linked. Let me remind you again of my definition:

quote:

---

...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.

---

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU HAVE SAID HAS CONTRADICTED THIS DEFINITION. You are the one committing that bit of sleight of hand. Have you provided even ONE instance of homosexual marriage that fits my definition of a culturally officially sanctioned union? I can't remember. Maybe you produced ONE? A "relationship" I repeat, is NOT a marriage. Marriage is a culturally legitimizing rite. What I said was that universally, in all times and places, it has been for uniting male and female, and NOTHING you have said contradicts that definition. Even if in some extremely rare and perverse instances a culture has officially sanctioned homosexuality -- and I haven't seen this yet, only temporary arrangements and relationships -- what I said about the purpose being to unite male and female stands. It's universal. There is no exception to this. That is the purpose of marriage everywhere in all times and places. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm saying that anything as universal as marriage, understood to be the culturally legitimized uniting of male and female, expressed as such absolutely everywhere and always, should not be changed in our major modern culture just because a few small oddball depraved cultures over the last few millennia have sort of/kind of/maybe/almost married homosexuals. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

1) I doubt this.2) I don't count it as marriage.3) It's a gross fallacy to say that what counts as marriage for heterosexuals must count for homosexuals, because marriage is for uniting male and female.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Right. Well it's true that evil and sin are as universal as good things like marriage. I guess if you can't tell them apart I give up.

In our culture the personal contractual aspect of it stands out and suits our individualism, but in most cultures over the millennia the social context of marriage appears to predominate. The smaller the society the more obviously it is a socially sanctioning event I suppose, but it has that aspect of it in all cultures as well, including ours.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

YOu can't tell good from evil either, huh?

A "few millennia" is three or four wouldn't you say? Well the planet goes back six, and marriage as well -- back to Eden -- so what is all this carrying on about my being "flexible" about my YEC position?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But I'm not flexible. I believe in 6000 years as the age of the earth. I just don't understand why you thought there was something odd about my remark about a few depraved cultures in a few millennia.