Is Hindu Marriage Moral

Probably from the rolling -- like the customs where marriage begins with the man taking the woman into his tent. But I don't know. All I know is that Jesus spoke of marriage as beginning with the Creation. All their "knowing" it means is that they weren't ashamed of it until they disobeyed. Nakedness throughout the Bible is a symbol of sins being exposed to God's judgment, and salvation from sin is often symbolized by a "covering" or "garment" that protects against judgment. God's covering them with animal skins is further taken to be a symbol of the sacrifices needed to pay for salvation, ultimately of Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice. God substituted the skins for their fig leaves, which covered them physically but couldn't cover them spiritually. Just this morning, on the absolute morality thread, recognizing anew the rampant subjectivism in our world these days, I made a decision to completely ignore all personal questions in the midst of an argument because they are irrelevant and only feed the worst habits generated by postmodern relativism. It's nothing but a sanctified ad hominem. If you can't make your point on the argument itself it can't be made. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thanks for the thoughts on Edenic marriage. It's difficult to know what a believer will declare to be symbolic, you see. Gee, I must be physic! What amazing timing!Still fair enough, I suppose--except that your supporting arguments are generally rooted in your subjective experience of a personal God. Oh, I think I can make my points without ad hominem fallacies, m'lady--do you not? (SANCTIFY MY FALLACY! may soon appear on a bumper sticker near you...)Hypocrisy, along with other self-indulgences, hides best among abstract arguments that eschew personal testimony and example. We weren't really having a debate here, but I think you've answered my question well enough.

---

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!
---------------------------------------

That's not how I see it.

Let's head towards the subject.

---

So anything between {rape} and {consensual sex} constitutes a "ceremony" of marriage -- as long as it is for heterosexuals.Don't you get tired of equivocating?Low let's discuss all ceremonies that are more "binding" than that ... including hindu marriages etc. to "civil" ceremonies where there is a contract between two people to share resources and to care for each other (THAT is lacking in your example, but appears in Hindu marriages and homosexual ceremonies in other countries).Enjoy - it's your fantasy.Edited by RAZD, : add paragraph

---

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.

I take this to be your driving theme, of which Hindu Marriage is just an example. Let's investigate what is involved in other traditions and other ways of bonding between peoples:Wiccan\Pagan Weddings (also involving multiple gods and goddesses, and the source of the christian "witch" myths etc)FROM: The History of Handfasting (click)
Note the reference to contract and to the ceremony being a civil government function before the church took over this function.FROM: A Wiccan Marriage (click)
What makes the marriage legal is civil laws, not any religious traditions.And example of a ceremony can be found at
http://www.ecauldron.com/handfast2.phpI did not find any reference to having sex let alone children, but there was reference to:

• pledging that the union will be one of perfect love and perfect trust
• granting them the deepest of love and richness of Body, of Soul, and of Spirit for so long as they desire to remain together.
• stating their desire to be united, one with the other, and making a pledge and testimony to their love and commitment to each other.
• the ceremony symbolizing the bonding of their souls, energy, and life force; that throughout their life together, they may know of nothing but each other's joy and love, in perfect balance and peace.

... you get the idea.Now why is wiccan marriage less evil than gay marriage?This is a cultural tradition of temporary marriages? Or one more honest about human behavior?Enjoyps -- this is not a reference to 'fisting' ...

---

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.

In the previous message I discussed the Wiccan Marriage issue as another point of comparison (Hindu being the one in the OP).I also e-mailed "spelcaster" from one site: So there you have it, a belief system that does not exclude gays from the SAME ceremony as is used for heterosexuals.Does this now make Wiccan marriage worse?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.

Because apparently it unites only heterosexuals, which is the purpose of marriage.

Odd question. It wouldn't affect hetero marriages, just as usual the whole concept of marriage and therefore the whole social fabric. Gay marriage is a travesty in and of itself.Also it's an odd idea you seem to be implying, that a contemporary group that is willing to marry gays would constitute an exception to 6000 years of cross-cultural heterosexual marriage, especially one that particularly disdains Biblical Christianity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here? How is a group that wants to marry homosexuals not an exception to the "rule" of "no groups throughout history married homosexuals"?Also, what relevance is past history? You implied yourself that you would be more than will to change cultural traditions if you thought that those traditions were wrong. This shows that past tradition is not relevant to anything. There always has to be a "first time", otherwise we would be no different to early civilizations 5-10 thousand years ago.

Because the whole argument is based on TODAY's unprecedented push to do what was never done before. That people TODAY are willing to do it is taken for granted. Everybody's nuts these days. But historically marriage crossculturally was for heterosexuals. Even if the occasional depraved group sometimes married homosexuals, the incidence had to be something like 1 in 10 million which is a good definition of aberrance. That's correct, and I don't think the rule against marrying homosexuals is wrong. Marriage is for male and female. That's the whole point of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh I know you think it's wrong, that's why we're having this discussion But my point was that we're getting sidetracked on past tradition. People think you're implying that we shouldn't change the rule because of past tradition, so they are busy trying to show you where it was allowed in the past.But that isn't impressing you, because I get the impression that even if every culture in the past had allowed it you still wouldn't want it happening now. So our time would be better spent discussing exactly why you don't think homosexual marriage is acceptable, rather than getting sidetracked on this red-herring.

No, if there were impressive precedent I would have to concede, but I haven't seen anything that approaches even minimally convincing precedent. A few nowhere cultures and Nero.But you are right that isn't my only argument, and another is that gay marriage is wrong and is only going to contribute to the continued degeneration of the West. What made the West great was basically the Christian mentality that lifted Europe out of primitive heathen tribalism, and put some restraints on fallen human nature.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Wow, fast reply lol. Anyway I think you'd be giving up too easily by giving in to past occurences. If you have a rational reason to be against homosexual marriage then the number of people doing it in the past wouldn't alter that. The only reason I can think of for giving in because of how many people did it in the past is if your only/main argument is "We shouldn't do it because no one did it before".

I'm sure you're right that I'd just move on to another of my arguments if there were appreciable precedent for homosexual marriage. In that case I'd class it with slavery as one of the expressions of fallen human nature we rightly do without.All my arguments are based on Biblical revelation of course, but some of them can nevertheless be argued without reference to it. Marriage is as old as history because it was instituted in Eden, you see.{Edit: Point is I'm trying to find the best arguments for nonbelievers, and I do think the lack of precedent ought to count. That shows that homosexual relationships just aren't normally thought of in the same category as marriage.It's harder to make the case to a nonbeliever that the West is deteriorating thanks to our falling away from our Christian roots, wouldn't you say, since you are an unbeliever?And of course if I appeal to Leviticus and Deuteronomy, forget it.But of course I don't have to argue this at all. It's probably futile. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.