|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Hindu Marriage Moral | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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 ... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
1) I doubt this. No, you deny it.
2) I don't count it as marriage. Then "marriage" is not universal in all cultures.
3) It's a gross fallacy to say that what counts as marriage for heterosexuals must count for homosexuals because marriage is FOR heterosexuals. See, you are {begging the question} because you only count the evidence if it applies to heterosexual when the same level of relationship does not count for homosexuals. You are attempting to define "marriage" based on what is "universal" in all cultures, but you are not counting "universal" evidence, only the evidence that fits the definition you want to derive from it. What is the gross fallacy here is your denial of the evidence that refutes your position and your {begging the question}. The only way you can - with any honesty - deny homosexual relationships as being "marriage" is to also deny that "marriage" applies to the same level of cultural acceptance - or less - when those are the maximum level found in heterosexual relationships in some cultures. Of course that makes your definition based on your {personal religious} belief rather than a (thorougly falsified) universal position. Or it is just based on bigotry and bias and no evidence at all. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4675 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
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. I'm saying that anything as universal as (slavery), understood to be the culturally legitimized uniting of (master) and (slave), 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 (criminalized slavery). A little stilted in expression but seems to fit well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Marriage is a culturally legitimizing rite.
I think I disagree with that. I would say that marriage is a binding contract between two people to share their lives. I want to distinguish it from a rite, because I see the rituals as superficial. The form of the rituals varies from culture to culture. A couple could perform the rituals without actually being married. It is the contractual agreement, including the expectations and requirements of society with respect to that contract, that makes a marriage different from an affair. Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing. The social sanctioning is part of how a society sustains a contract. If there were no contract, you could be married in the morning and walk away from it in the afternoon.
In modern western societies, we have alternative ways of sustaining contracts, such as are provided by the law courts. However, if people entered into a formal contract, but the content of that contract were abhorrent to the society, the courts would not sustain that contract. Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
just because a few small oddball depraved cultures over the last few millennia If I'm not mistaken, (and I might be,) aren't you YEC? Wouldn't "the last few millenia," in your eyes, be a good hearty chunk of all time? "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4913 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
Faith writes: 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. Right, so in reality your rejection of something has nothing whatsoever to do with changing something that has been fairly constant throughout history. You've admited that if slavery were legal, and had been legal in most societies through recorded history before this one, you would still object to it being legal! So by inference this leads to the conclusion that the reason you object to homosexual marriage has nothing to do with the definition of marriage throughout history, but rather because you think homosexual marriage is evil or sinful or immoral (as was the reasons given against it in the other thread).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
YOu can't tell good from evil either, huh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
docpotato Member (Idle past 5047 days) Posts: 334 From: Portland, OR Joined: |
You don't seem to be able to tell good from tradition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4913 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
Faith writes: YOu can't tell good from evil either, huh? I sure can, but since homosexuality and homosexual marriage aren't making my list of evil or immoral things I think it's safe to say we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. But my point was, your argument against gay marriage had nothing to do with tradition but with what you thought was good and evil. In that case surely Hindu marriage, where people are openly worshiping other gods, would qualify as just as evil? (And not just Hindu marriage, but many other things too). I just wonder why no people rally against the rights of Hindus to marry in the name of the wrong gods. The way people fight against homosexual marriage, it just seems a little blinkered as if the only thing they thought was important was gay marriage and nothing else. The only reason I can think why there are no cries for outlawing hindu marriage is that people recognise the rights of Hindus to marry even if they don't agree with their religion, but then I fail to see why the same recognition isn't made for homosexuals and their rights to have their relationships recognised to give them security and self respect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: OK, that's your personal, religious opinion about what should or shouldn't be done, but that has nothing to do with the "cultures haven't recognized it in the past, therefore no culture ever should now or in the future" argument of yours. You were arguing that the fact that a certain aspect of a culture was a certain way for a long time was reason enough to preserve that aspect. That is not a valid reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Wouldn't "the last few millenia," in your eyes, be a good hearty chunk of all time? (1) she's been flexible on the YEC bit before and (2) a "millenia" is a thousand years. The last few thousand years ago was still history. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024