reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 18, 2007 16:07:10 GMT -4
I opened up a poll in the beyond belief section asking if gay people should have the right to marry.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2007 17:06:40 GMT -4
I'm talking about two consenting adults that are not already married and in love with each other. Those restrictions you outlined apply for anyone (except for the last one of course). Which is my point. There are limits on who you can marry that everyone generally finds acceptable. Well, it is more than just a declaration of love. On the contrary. Marriage was originally recognized in a legal sense in order to govern inheritance and family laws. Legitimate children are legally wards of their parents and will inherit from them if no other arrangements are made. In short, marriage is recognized in a legal sense primarily for the sake of biological children of the parents. Other legal benefits have been added in addition to this primary legal purpose. No, because I don't believe that the only consideration for the legitimacy of a marriage is love. If you believe that love is the only factor, do you support polygamous or polyanderous marriages? Other forms of group marriages? Marriages between under age partners? Marriage betwen people and animals? Marriage to deceased individuals? Because marriage by definition requires two genders. If it doesn't have two genders it may well still be a relationship but it's simply not a marriage.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 18, 2007 18:04:21 GMT -4
EXCEPT for the whole two genders bit you added at the end. It's clear not everyony generally finds that acceptable.
That's a moot point since as you said other legal benefits have since been added. And those other legal benefits have become pretty important.
You've said this now twice. Care to elaborate? Love is certainly not the only factor but it should always be the most important.
Well, as I just said, love is not the only factor, but no I do not support polygamy, especially the way mormons practiced it. I don't support a system where men could choose multiple wives but women could not choose multiple husbands. It's discriminatory and offensive towards women. Especially since the original wives were not really given much of a choice. Plural marriage took choice away from the women, and the practice was only deemed sinful by the Mormon church as a "prophecy" when the government began cracking down on them. That sure was convenient timing, huh?
You are going around in circles. I specifically said that marriage was a declaration by two consenting adults. Don't try to attach my argument to bestiality or necrophilia or paedophilia because it won't work.
In your mind that's true but not in mine. why are two genders required? You keep repeating the same statements over and over but you won't tell me why it's so. I don't think you have a reason. I just think you are prejudiced.
Let me ask you this: If I found a couple that wanted to be married, then took the brain out of the woman and put it in a man's body, and they still wanted to be married, would you oppose to that?
If I found a male gay couple that wanted to be married, and I took the brain out of one of the men and put it in a woman's body, and they still wanted to be married, would you oppose to that?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2007 18:22:43 GMT -4
EXCEPT for the whole two genders bit you added at the end. It's clear not everyony generally finds that acceptable. Yes, that is the dispute. So we do agree that there should be some restrictions on marriage, correct? But the legal benefits are intended to promote marriage becuase society believes it has a stake in successful marraiges - it has that stake because they produce future members of society. I did elaborate, and I said basically what you just said, that it's the most important factor but not the only one. How much do you actually know about how Mormons practiced it? You obviously didn't know that the consent of the first wife was required before her husband could marry a second wife. And consent of both the first and second wives would be requried before marriage of a third, and so forth. On what basis do you restrict it to only two adults? Why is blue not red? Because blue just isn't red. There's no more explanation to it than that. I would object to you taking the brain out of a woman and placing it in a man's body, and vice-versa, to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 18, 2007 22:49:48 GMT -4
Is religion good? That's almost like saying 'is man good?'. It doesn't matter if I believe in god or gods or nirvana or nothing. It DOES matter how I live my life, raise my kids , treat my neighbours etc. I totally discount the argument that without religion you can't have ethics or morals. However that said, I do think that religion in a LOT of cases can be a guiding force for good in society. Unfortunately it also can have the opposite effect, so it is unstable but so is most things in this world. I was raised Roman Catholic. When I was twelve I became an alter boy. After seeing how human priests were backstage I completely rejected Christianity because most Catholics are brought up to think of priests as mini-Gods. I was into Buddism for a few years after that and it was very comfortable to my heart and soul. Lately I've listened to Socrates more than anyone else... But Jesus as a MAN inspires me a lot too.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2007 22:53:16 GMT -4
I'm not sure I would argue that a religion is necessary in order to have ethics or morals. I do think it helps to have strong ethics and morals.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 18, 2007 23:18:51 GMT -4
I have no problems with ethics - morals is a different matter. It's much more subjective.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 19, 2007 0:50:23 GMT -4
You obviously didn't know that the consent of the first wife was required before her husband could marry a second wife. And consent of both the first and second wives would be requried before marriage of a third, and so forth. I know that was true on paper. I also know that women are routinely expected to defer to their men--and please don't embarass us all by claiming that wasn't true; it was true pretty well across the board in the relevant time period, regardless of your religion (with one or two interesting exceptions). How hard would it have been to have just claimed your first wife gave her consent? After all, Emma Smith is well known to have strongly objected to the thought of her husband taking other wives.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2007 11:32:13 GMT -4
How hard would it have been to have just claimed your first wife gave her consent? As I understand it the first wife would have to give verbal consent to the authority who was to perform the sealing herself. Actually she strongly objected at some times and accepted it at others. She was inconsistant on the point during Joseph's life. After his death (and when she decided not to follow the Church west) her opinion solidified against the practice. My own ancestors state that they found it at times very difficult to live in polygamy. They had been raised in other faiths and when they joined the Church polygamy had not yet been revealed to Joseph. When it was revealed they said they found it a hard doctrine, but they believed it was their religious duty and so they obeyed. One interesting item I have come across is the text of an 1886 women's conference protesting for their right to practice polygamy: www.fairlds.org/Misc/MormonWomenProtest.pdfIt's a bit lengthy, but I find it a fascinating glimpse into the attitude of mormon women at the time when persecution against the church for the practice was at its strongest. Go have a look at it if you want some understanding of the issue.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 19, 2007 14:46:06 GMT -4
it seems kind of silly to be having the same argument on two different threads, so Jason I will respond to your claims on the thread I started.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2007 14:48:07 GMT -4
Fine. I'm happy to see this thread turn to subjects other than homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 19, 2007 15:34:59 GMT -4
Okay. Let's talk evolution instead, shall we?
Do you consider the researchers, the thousands of researchers, who have found conclusive evidence of the validity of evolution liars, or do you consider God a liar for putting the evidence there?
As to Emma Smith, her objections never actually stopped any of her husband's marriages so far as I know.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 19, 2007 17:22:09 GMT -4
plural marriage to me looks like a cheap way to be able to be with more than one woman while still being free of sin. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Plural marriage is another black mark on religion as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2007 18:32:19 GMT -4
Do you consider the researchers, the thousands of researchers, who have found conclusive evidence of the validity of evolution liars, or do you consider God a liar for putting the evidence there? I deny that conclusive proof of evolution has been found. The evidence to date seems to fit the theory, but most of it was found in the first place by people who who looking to prove the theory. I don't think God intended to deceive anyone as to how life came about or reached its present state. I do think He intended for his role in having brought about life on this world to remain ambiguous, and possible to doubt. EDIT: I would be remiss if I did not add that this is my own personal position on evolution. The LDS church doesn't have any official position on the subject. She provided her consent when they were carried out. Yes I know that at times she claimed she never did so. At others she claimed that Brigham Young was the author of polygamy and that Joseph had never pracitced it, which is clearly untrue.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2007 18:33:40 GMT -4
plural marriage to me looks like a cheap way to be able to be with more than one woman while still being free of sin. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Plural marriage is another black mark on religion as far as I'm concerned. Go have a look at the link I provided. See if you think these women felt repressed by anyone other than the Fedral (and by extension, the Territorial) government. And they expressly deny the charge you are making here.
|
|