Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Hindu Marriage Moral
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 108 (333630)
07-20-2006 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by nator
07-20-2006 6:42 AM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by nator, posted 07-20-2006 6:42 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by LinearAq, posted 07-20-2006 8:44 AM Faith has replied
 Message 39 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-20-2006 9:49 AM Faith has replied
 Message 44 by nator, posted 07-20-2006 5:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 32 of 108 (333632)
07-20-2006 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
07-19-2006 10:02 PM


Re: Denial and Bias
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2006 10:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2006 7:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 108 (333637)
07-20-2006 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
07-20-2006 7:08 AM


Re: Denial and Bias
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.

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 32 by Faith, posted 07-20-2006 7:08 AM Faith has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 34 of 108 (333655)
07-20-2006 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
07-20-2006 7:03 AM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 07-20-2006 7:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 07-20-2006 8:46 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 35 of 108 (333657)
07-20-2006 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by LinearAq
07-20-2006 8:44 AM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by LinearAq, posted 07-20-2006 8:44 AM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by happy_atheist, posted 07-20-2006 1:46 PM Faith has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 36 of 108 (333659)
07-20-2006 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
07-19-2006 9:14 PM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 9:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 07-20-2006 9:04 AM nwr has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 108 (333662)
07-20-2006 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by nwr
07-20-2006 8:58 AM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nwr, posted 07-20-2006 8:58 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by nwr, posted 07-20-2006 9:25 AM Faith has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 38 of 108 (333669)
07-20-2006 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
07-20-2006 9:04 AM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 07-20-2006 9:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 108 (333678)
07-20-2006 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
07-20-2006 7:03 AM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 07-20-2006 7:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2006 8:19 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-21-2006 12:43 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 40 of 108 (333758)
07-20-2006 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
07-20-2006 8:46 AM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 07-20-2006 8:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 07-20-2006 1:52 PM happy_atheist has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 41 of 108 (333759)
07-20-2006 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by happy_atheist
07-20-2006 1:46 PM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
YOu can't tell good from evil either, huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by happy_atheist, posted 07-20-2006 1:46 PM happy_atheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by docpotato, posted 07-20-2006 2:13 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 43 by happy_atheist, posted 07-20-2006 5:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 42 of 108 (333761)
07-20-2006 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
07-20-2006 1:52 PM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
You don't seem to be able to tell good from tradition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 07-20-2006 1:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 43 of 108 (333787)
07-20-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
07-20-2006 1:52 PM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 07-20-2006 1:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 44 of 108 (333802)
07-20-2006 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
07-20-2006 7:03 AM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 07-20-2006 7:03 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 108 (333821)
07-20-2006 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dan Carroll
07-20-2006 9:49 AM


Re: Of course it is ... just as moral as ...
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.

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 39 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-20-2006 9:49 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-21-2006 12:30 PM RAZD 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