Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,638 Year: 4,895/9,624 Month: 243/427 Week: 53/103 Day: 11/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 286 of 313 (751807)
03-06-2015 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
03-06-2015 6:32 AM


When you say that marriage has not change in 2000 years you cannot then say "apart from that" every time somebody shows you that you are wrong to say that.
All the best.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 6:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 6:47 AM Larni has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 287 of 313 (751809)
03-06-2015 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Larni
03-06-2015 6:35 AM


OK so let me try to be clear. I have the structure of marriage in mind, who can marry whom, and whether marriage is even practiced, while apparently everybody else is thinking of incidentals like how women are treated, how the marriage came about etc. I don't think that has anything to do with marriage as such, but you are right, it needs to be clarified up front.
The problem is I say something and someone else comes back without bothering to consider how I meant it and lambasts me in nasty accusatory terms, so I am always having to correct their misimpression, which they could have done themselves if they had an ounce of fairness in them.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Larni, posted 03-06-2015 6:35 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2015 7:01 AM Faith has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9532
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 288 of 313 (751810)
03-06-2015 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Faith
03-06-2015 6:47 AM


Faith writes:
I have the structure of marriage in mind, who can marry whom, and whether marriage is even practiced
Yes Faith, who can marry who has changed. And thoughts about whether people need to marry at all has changed.
Hurrah, the world is a much better place!
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 6:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 7:12 AM Tangle has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 289 of 313 (751812)
03-06-2015 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Tangle
03-06-2015 7:01 AM


Let's get the context straight if at all possible. Those changes that thrill you so have come about RECENTLY, VERY RECENTLY. That's the point of this discussion if you have any interest whatever in following the discussion, which I suppose you don't, but since I do there you have it. The point was that marriage stayed the same overall for those two thousand years, one man, one woman, and only recently changed under the influence of Cultural Marxism.
There hasn't yet been enough time to find out if "the world is a much better place." But of course all you really mean is your politically correct opinion has the upper hand, therefore all's well with the world.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2015 7:01 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2015 7:37 AM Faith has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9532
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 290 of 313 (751815)
03-06-2015 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Faith
03-06-2015 7:12 AM


Faith writes:
The point was that marriage stayed the same overall for those two thousand years, one man, one woman, and only recently changed under the influence of Cultural Marxism.
Well Henry VIII made one or two changes apparently and I suspect a 6th century marriage was not the romantic idyl you have in mind.
Death by minor deceases also continued without change until we started to learn some important things about the world - like they're not caused by devils nor cured by prayer or superstitious potions.
Cultural Marxism my arse. Social progress, and thank god for it.
1. Arranged alliances
Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.
2. Family ties
Keeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.
3. Polygamy preferred
Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages. [Life's Extremes: Monogamy vs. Polygamy]
4. Babies optional
In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.
"The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.
5. Monogamy established
Monogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries, Coontz said.
"There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old nobility and kings who wanted to say 'I can take a second wife,'" Coontz said.
The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the notion of marriage by the ninth century.
6. Monogamy lite
Still, monogamous marriage was very different from the modern conception of mutual fidelity. Though marriage was legally or sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman, until the 19th century, men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs, Coontz said. Any children resulting from those trysts, however, would be illegitimate, with no claim to the man's inheritance.
"Men's promiscuity was quite protected by the dual laws of legal monogamy but tolerance basically enabling of informal promiscuity," Coontz said.
Women caught stepping out, by contrast, faced serious risk and censure.
7. State or church?
Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.
8. Civil marriage
In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.
9. Love matches
By about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction, Coontz said, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all, Coontz said.
10. Market economics
Around the world, family-arranged alliances have gradually given way to love matches, and a transition from an agricultural to a market economy plays a big role in that transition, Coontz said.
Parents historically controlled access to inheritance of agricultural land. But with the spread of a market economy, "it's less important for people to have permission of their parents to wait to give them an inheritance or to work on their parents' land," Coontz said. "So it's more possible for young people to say, 'heck, I'm going to marry who I want.'"
Modern markets also allow women to play a greater economic role, which lead to their greater independence. And the expansion of democracy, with its emphasis on liberty and individual choice, may also have stacked the deck for love matches.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 7:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 7:56 AM Tangle has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 291 of 313 (751816)
03-06-2015 7:45 AM


Off Again
All Probate Judges in Alabama are now complying with Alabama Supreme Court Order. Same sex marriage licenses are no longer being approved.
This is an order from the full Alabama SC, not the order from Chief Justice Moore. Licenses already issued by the probate judges are being rescinded. In Mobile, where the Federal District Court had ordered the probate judge to issue licenses to 4 couples he must issue these 4 licenses but will not issue any more.
There is a valid legal question as to whether a Federal District Court can compel a State Supreme court to action. If Judge Granade, the Federal District, tried to extend her order to all Alabama probate judges, or the Alabama Supreme Court itself, the question of validity would remain. Only SCOTUS can resolve this one.
Gay marriage off in Alabama

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 292 of 313 (751817)
03-06-2015 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Tangle
03-06-2015 7:37 AM


All this has already been addressed, Tangle. Just read back through the recent posts. I've been trying to keep the focus on the shape or structure of marriage itself and everybody else keeps bringing up such incidentals as you are bringing up. They are incidentals, they are not about marriage as such. How spouses came together is irrelevant to the form of marriage itself. Henry the 8th's having many wives doesn't change the fact that each of his marriages was a standard man-woman monogamy. He could have contributed to the popularity of divorce that's so rampant now, I suppose, but since he lopped off their heads instead, we had to wait until the 20th century for divorce to become common. The tolerance or lack of it of extramarital adulteries is also irrelevant -- they were tolerated but mostly an upper class thing anyway and morally condemned besides, since monogamy was taken as the moral standard. And please note that the time factor here is THE LAST 2000 years so polygamy before that is off topic.
This "social progress" you are talking about IS, as a matter of fact, historically, the brainchild of Cultural Marxism, which rose to influence the whole sixties generation through the German Jewish professors of the School of Social Research who escaped Nazi Germany to teach in American universities. Make Love Not War and the whole Sexual Freedom Movement came out of Herbert Marcuse's influence. Patriarchy and traditional authority were attacked by Marcuse and Adorno, largely out of their paranoia about anti-Semitism which had fueled much of their thinking back in Germany, misplaced in America but profoundly destructive of American culture nevertheless, and the radical Marxist feminists. Anti-nuclear family and anti-marriage came out of the same cauldron. Gay rights got strident during those years, and that can also be traced back to the American Communist movement of the early part of the century.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2015 7:37 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2015 9:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34060
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 293 of 313 (751819)
03-06-2015 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
03-06-2015 6:24 AM


Re: the errors are yours jar
Faith writes:
You continue to confuse incidentals with the essence. The point was that marriage itself has not changed over the last 2000 years, but only very recently, it's been one man with one woman for 2000 years, and it's been enforced by most societies as the rule. The objection to interracial marriage was very shortlived and very very local and its defense on the basis of the Bible bogus in the extreme, besides which that too has nothing to do with what I'm saying about the essence of marriage itself. Multiple spouses during that period is an aberration, the examples you have in mind precede Christ, meaning precede the last 2000 years.
What's changed in the west in the last few decades is that divorce has become easy, many people live together without bothering to get married and now we have the absurd idea that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Those are real changes and they are new.
The New Testament also provides for divorce and even Jesus agrees that divorce is allowed.
Have you ever read the Bible Faith?
Infidelity of any kind was grounds for divorce or even one partner being a non-believer.
So not only has marriage changed a lot over the last 2000 years divorce really hasn't changed all that much.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 6:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 8:33 AM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 294 of 313 (751821)
03-06-2015 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by jar
03-06-2015 8:15 AM


Re: the errors are yours jar
Jesus condemned divorce as hated by God, allowing only the circumstance of sexual infidelity as a justification for it. And divorce was allowed in the marriage of a believer to an unbeliever if the unbeliever didn't want to stay married but that wasn't often the case. Then the believer was counseled to let the unbeliever go but then remarriage is not approved in any of those cases. None of this made divorce common and easy, as it is now. Since apostolic times divorce didn't become casual and common in the west until the last few decades.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by jar, posted 03-06-2015 8:15 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by jar, posted 03-06-2015 9:07 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 297 by JonF, posted 03-06-2015 9:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34060
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 295 of 313 (751823)
03-06-2015 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
03-06-2015 8:33 AM


Re: the errors are yours jar
Faith writes:
Jesus condemned divorce as hated by God, allowing only the circumstance of sexual infidelity as a justification for it. And divorce was allowed in the marriage of a believer to an unbeliever if the unbeliever didn't want to stay married but that wasn't often the case. Then the believer was counseled to let the unbeliever go but then remarriage is not approved in any of those cases. None of this made divorce common and easy, as it is now. Since apostolic times divorce didn't become casual and common in the west until the last few decades.
Sheesh Faith.
People who get divorced hate that divorce was necessary too.
Also, it was marital infidelity that the Bible talks about and that is never defined.
And if someone wanted to get a divorce all that was needed was for that spouse to claim they did not believe. How is that different than today's no fault divorce? The unbeliever was of course free to remarry, it was only the member of that chapter of Club Christian that might not be able to remarry.
And when it comes to remarriage the Roman Catholic church decided that was not allowed. The Bible (as with most everything) is unclear about that. As Henry showed us though in Protestant Christianity divorce and remarriage is certainly possible.
And finally, there have been far more non-Christian marriages during the last 2000 years than Christian ones and rules have changed even there.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 8:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9532
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(3)
Message 296 of 313 (751824)
03-06-2015 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Faith
03-06-2015 7:56 AM


Faith writes:
standard man-woman monogamy
You seem to be forgetting standard man-girlchild marriage, man-cousin marriage, man-many woman marriages (polygamy) - should we bring those biblical marriages (that haven't changed!) back?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 7:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 253 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 297 of 313 (751825)
03-06-2015 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
03-06-2015 8:33 AM


Re: the errors are yours jar
I.e. hated by God except where not hatred by God. Amusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 8:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6421
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 298 of 313 (751826)
03-06-2015 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Faith
03-06-2015 6:26 AM


I just answered jar. He is bringing up irrelevant incidentals and he's including things from BEFORE 2000 years ago, missing the whole point.
Yes, you are right. Nothing has changed about marriage, with the exception of everything.
But those changes are all mere incidentals. So they don't count.
But, looked at that way, same sex marriage is just another mere incidental. It's no different from Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson sharing an apartment. It's no different from Jesus hanging out with a dozen male disciples.
So you should be able just adapt to another mere incidental.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 6:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by 1.61803, posted 03-06-2015 12:45 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 301 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 2:26 PM nwr has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1589 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 299 of 313 (751838)
03-06-2015 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by nwr
03-06-2015 9:26 AM


nwr writes:
Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson sharing an apartment.
Blimey!

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by nwr, posted 03-06-2015 9:26 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by AZPaul3, posted 03-06-2015 1:38 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 300 of 313 (751842)
03-06-2015 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by 1.61803
03-06-2015 12:45 PM


Blimey!
And what was Mrs. Hudson's position in all this?
She most certainly didn't take it standing up!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by 1.61803, posted 03-06-2015 12:45 PM 1.61803 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