|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,817 Year: 4,074/9,624 Month: 945/974 Week: 272/286 Day: 33/46 Hour: 5/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Hindu Marriage Moral | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
20 billion cultures that have hetero marriage, one that also has homo marriage. "20 billion", huh? Boy, you really do just make it up as you go along, don't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
20 billion cultures that have hetero marriage 20 billion cultures? We're supposed to have been around for, like, 6000 years, right? So what's that, like... almost 3.5 million cultures cropping up and dying out a year? It'd be cool if they were all still around! We'd have more than three cultures for every man, woman, and child on the planet! "We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
faith writes: 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 In a secular democracy governmental legitimization does not equate to Christian legitimization. You seem to forget that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I didn't forget anything. The OP asked why Christians don't object to Hindu marriage. I said why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
So you expect a secular government to enact law for religious reasons in order to avoid "national sin"?
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4941 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
Your objections are very different to the objections I saw in the other thread. The objections I saw there were basically "We can't legalise homosexual marriage because it is immoral".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So you expect a secular government to enact law for religious reasons in order to avoid "national sin"? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I've argued from history, the weight of crosscultural practice over the millennia, not religion. And it has been shown that you are wrong in your assertion that it is historical. I guess that makes it - not just moral - the proper thing to have gay marriage, if you then have no religious objection. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : typot 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It was shown. You all just ignore it and interpret it away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Senator Rick Santorum: "Divorce is simply far too easy to get in this country," he writes. "States should put in braking mechanisms for couples who have children under the age of 18. This means a mandatory waiting period and mandatory counseling before a divorce is granted."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: quote: So, are you saying that because a culture, or many cultures, have maintained one aspect of that culture for a certain period of time, this means that that aspect must never, ever be allowed to change? Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Let's talk about your denial of facts:
Nobody said homosexuality is rare, just homosexual marriage. "Having a relationship" is not marriage. Compare to:
Message 6 (bold for empHASis)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. Aside from equivocating from "never" to "rare" ... Something that is "just as a cultural expression" and that "has taken many forms" is a relationship, not a marriage. You cannot claim "marriage" status for one set of evidence with such a loose definition and then exclude it for another set of evidence that meets the same criteria, especially when there is more foundation for it in some cultures than there is for marriage in other cultures. You cannot make a definition of marriage that can be applied to the Na of China and that excludes homosexual relationships. You cannot make your definitions fit your beliefs because you want to or because it makes you comfortable to do so. There is no difference between Hindu marriage, civil marriage, homosexual marriage, or any other marriage - it's a contract between two people. That is what makes it moral (and how those people abide by their contract). Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Let's talk about your denial of facts:
Nobody said homosexuality is rare, just homosexual marriage. "Having a relationship" is not marriage. Compare to:
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. It has taken many forms but has not been ignored or disdained by any culture until very recent times in the West.(bold for empHASis) Aside from equivocating from "never" to "rare" ... 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.
Something that is "just as a cultural expression" and that "has taken many forms" is a relationship, not a marriage. 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.
You cannot claim "marriage" status for one set of evidence with such a loose definition and then exclude it for another set of evidence that meets the same criteria, especially when there is more foundation for it in some cultures than there is for marriage in other cultures. 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.
You cannot make a definition of marriage that can be applied to the Na of China and that excludes homosexual relationships. My definition of marriage is not falsified by anything you've said or linked. Let me remind you again of my definition:
quote: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU HAVE SAID HAS CONTRADICTED THIS DEFINITION.
You cannot make your definitions fit your beliefs because you want to or because it makes you comfortable to do so. You are the one committing that bit of sleight of hand.
There is no difference between Hindu marriage, civil marriage, homosexual marriage, or any other marriage - it's a contract between two people. That is what makes it moral (and how those people abide by their contract). 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Denial is like that.
No. "Just a cultural expression" simply meant "not religious." "Cultural expression" implies something culturally SANCTIONED, LEGITIMATED, officially publically recognized etc. etc. etc. I gave you one example of a publically recognized sanctioned legitimated homosexual relationship and noted where several others were that discussed such relationships around the world. I also gave you an example where there was NO such "culturally SANCTIONED, LEGITIMATED, officially publically recognized etc. etc. etc" between a man and a woman (the Na in China).
My definition of marriage is not falsified by anything you've said or linked. Let me remind you again of my definition: That is exactly what this evidence above falsifies: you cannot make a definition of marriage that includes the Na and excludes the "culturally SANCTIONED, LEGITIMATED, officially publically recognized etc. etc. etc" of some homosexual relationships in other places of the world. What you have is a spectrum of "culturally SANCTIONED, LEGITIMATED, officially publically recognized etc. etc. etc" relationships between (1) heterosexuals and (b) homosexuals, and those spectrums overlap.
... it has been for uniting male and female, and NOTHING you have said contradicts that definition. Do you really mean you are {begging the question} - a logical fallacy - because you only allow male\female unions to be considered as evidence of unions between two people, and then claim "look they are only male\female unions" -- that you are not being honest with yourself?
... to unite male and female stands. It's universal. There is no exception to this. ... homosexuality -- and I haven't seen this yet, only temporary arrangements and relationships ... There are many cultures where sexual relationships between {male\female} partners is only "temporary arrangements and relationships" - so if you count this as "marriage" for heterosexual couples then you MUST count them equally as "marriage" for homosexual couples ... OR you are applying your bias to the selection of evidence so that it suits your preconception of the result (which makes you feel comfortable), and deny the evidence that contradicts your position (which is not honest). Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, are you saying that because a culture, or many cultures, have maintained one aspect of that culture for a certain period of time, this means that that aspect must never, ever be allowed to change?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024