marriage

[Rían]

katya - you're the thread-starter - do you want this area of the discussion to go onto another thread, or not?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

How can we use this as an adequate basis of evidence, when the "history" of homo-sapiens is decidedly short compared to the 'existence' of homo-sapiens, within which there are no records to validate marriage? Or, to go back further, beyond homo-sapiens?

Of course, this is pure conjecture, too

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Millane

hmmm okay (this is relevant to what you were saying earlier Inked) lets just say hypothetically 99% of humans are not midgets and 1% are, are we to infer that midgets are not human?

OK, I calmed down

I would say that the correct inference in this case would be that the norm for a human is to NOT be a midget. That's the only valid inference I see. I don't get why you said "not human".

now a couple of questions, someone asked this earlier but i didnt really see any answer. Inked you stated that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, and a few others put to start a family etc, well this certainly excludes homosexual couples (without adoption of course) but it also leaves out people who want a hetero marriage who are sterile for one reason or another and have the same chance of making a baby homosexuals have. Should they be allowed to marry?
Also although it may seem obvious to some people (not too me though ) for the people who are against homosexuals marrying, what consequences are you afraid of????????????

I answered all of these questions over on the Gay/Les thread, if you're interested in my opinion. I think they're all within the last 5 pages of the thread.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Of course, this is pure conjecture, too

It's only "pure conjecture"* if you want to take it back beyond homo sapiens, otherwise the statement only presupposes that pre-history lasted much longer than history. ::shrug::

*"pure conjecture" of course based on scientific methodologies

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

The real motive behind changing the definition of marriage for the thread discussion has been admitted however:
"When you're talking about people with feelings and rights instead of the Sun." .... Did I miss any points that wanted answering?

Yes, I think you missed an important aspect in what Nurvi said about feelings, at least.

I think you and I, inked, are rather analytical. And I think that decisions SHOULD be based on thought, and rational thought, and I imagine you (and I hope the others) agree. However, it is very true that we're talking about people here, and people have feelings. I don't have any doubt that you value homosexuals just as highly as other people, like I do, but we need to be careful to acknowledge and respect and honor people's feelings in this very sensitive area. I think we need to speak out for what we believe to be true, but show our compassion, too. Many homosexuals have said it's VERY painful for them, and they wouldn't have chosen to be this way if they had a choice. Believe me, it's painful for me to express my beliefs on this subject, for many reasons - but I do it because I think it is the highest form of love (doing something that you think is good and right for a person, even tho you know you'll get slammed), and I hope others would do the same for me about something I'm doing that they think is harmful, based on their beliefs.

I don't know - it's late and I'm not expressing myself well now, but the reality is that I really feel a great deal of compassion for homosexuals and the pain that they tell me about, and when I get in an analytical mood, sometimes the compassion doesn't come across, and I can understand how people react negatively to that, and I don't blame them! They SHOULD react negatively, if they think I don't care about homosexuals! They SHOULD! These are people - valuable, beautiful people we're talking about here. And I feel that homosexuals are people just like you and I - I feel that STRONGLY - and sometimes, apparently, that doesn't come across, either. I think you probably feel the same way, inked, but people can't read your mind - you need to tell them. And THAT, I think, was a point that wanted answering

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

*"pure conjecture" of course based on scientific methodologies

which are extrapolative and not actual known fact

[Rían]

OK, now this thread has been double-hijacked - we're on evolution!

[Millane]

Originally Posted by inked

If successful barons of finance are inherently bad for society and constitute <1%, why doen't all behaviour at <1% get treated the same?

Ok Rian ill try and attack this methodology a different way, if doctors are inherently good for society and constitute <1%, why doesnt all behaviour at <1% get treated the same, ie. homosexual relationships are good for society? ?
once again not to put imply peoples beliefs rather to say your methods are not working, because im definately not arguing homosexual marriage is as good for society as doctors...

I would say that the correct inference in this case would be that the norm for a human is to NOT be a midget. That's the only valid inference I see. I don't get why you said "not human".

because im trying to put another example into Inked's argument, in which case i got out the inference midgets are not human purely from following his steps, its not what i would infer myself...

[katya]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

katya - you're the thread-starter - do you want this area of the discussion to go onto another thread, or not?

Not to be rude or anything, but yes. I think there are already threads for your thread-hijack topics.

[inked]

Troops,

So far all I have said is that the vast bulk of the evidence is inter-gender as far as evidence goes. Polygamy, polyandry, serial marriages, etc have all been >99% between sexes. This is the evidentiary basis of marriage in human societies for which we have data.

I have not made any aspersions against homosexuals as such. Merely pointed out that marriage (which was the topic) was by human evidence an inter-gender affair.

I have refused to get into the emotive part simply about same-sex person orientations because we weren't discussing that.

I wasn't insulting midgets or highly successful entrepeneurs either. Merely pointing out that these folks are not normative for humans. They certainly exist and do have feelings but that was not germane to the illustration.

If this thread is gonna get highjacked to the topic of same-sex marriage, I'll go there, but I have tried my best to stick to the data we have. As you have discovered, the data is very clear and the reaction to it varies.

So, Katya and/or Rian, whither next?

[Nurvingiel]

What's a serial marriage inked? Sounds interesting...

[inked]

Serial marriage is where one is allowed one partner at a time legally and individuals have a series of marriages. Very common in the USA and I think there was recently a report on CNN about some dude with 47 or 49 and maybe the Guiness Record.

It is not for nothing that this sounds like "cereal", as in which cereal shall I have today.

[Rían]

as far as "whither next" - It's katya's choice; I didn't start this thread

Millane, could you please take your question over to the Gay/Les thread, along with some background, if you want people to respond to it? Katya says she doesn't want it discussed here

[katya]

Whither indeed? Well, let us examine the relevant points that have been brought up so far, in outline format. I read through the thread and made this up just now, so sorry if I missed anything.

Marriage

I. Who?
A. by gender
i. monogamy- one man, one woman. (predominant in modern, western society. Is that ok to say?)
ii. polygamy- one man, >1 woman
iii. polandry- one woman, >1 man
iv. same-sex- two men OR two women
B. some preference toward those involved being of the same faith, race, etc. to varying extents.

II. When? (Timeframe)
A. Historical- including the records of marriage from the earliest know up until present time
B. Pre-historical- educated, scientific theories from before written history (debated separately, please, in order to keep to strictly facts. Sound ok?)

III. Why? (courtesy of Nurvi.)
A. Love
B. Procreation (footnote 1.)
C. Form a political alliance
D. Form a financial partnership
E. Form a team for better work capabilities
F. Stable family environment
G. others

IV. What? (dare I say it, but..."definition"???)
A. -conclusions concerning the formation of a definition-
i. no clear definition available. (only trends) (footnote 2.)
ii. uncertainty arising from lack or evidence creates difficulties (my suggestion is to stick to written history and discuss pre-history separately.)
iii. changes in definition over time (footnote 3.)
B. suggested components of most marriages (please add, rejects, etc.)
i. union between people. (It would be easy if I could say "two", but I guess not. Consequently it's a little vague.)
ii. lifelong or until they change their minds and get a divorce. (again, pretty vague.)
iii. social / legal / religious contract of sorts.

1. The priest at the local Catholic church (a senile old guy, bless his heart) stated that marriage is solely for the purpose of procreation. It has been brought up that some people are sterile- should they, on this basis, be prohibited from marrying? (Is this a question we want to delve further into? I don't, personally, but whatever.)
2. I'm going to say, for the purpose of discussion, that there can be no clear definition of marriage. If there is, who made it (and don't say Webster, you bunch of smart-asses)? Some religions and other personal beliefs might attempt to answer, but I will not, for the purpose of discussion, allow any of that sort of thing as fact. We'll attempt to define the trend on the basis of what we know. Are we in agreement? Suggestions welcome, naturally.
3. changes over time in "definition" of marriage- should it be allowed? is it inevitable? When and how should legal changes be made? (I like the Thomas Jefferson quote!) What are the pros and cons of changing the law? (Thanks Millane, for asking just what's the problem with legalizing same-sex marriage. Also, Rian, for your concern. You're a really loving person.^^)
(I guess this is where I'll allow some indulgence in the gay marriage debate, but keep it to a minimum.)

And finally! The end is near! Here's my general suggestions concerning the whither and the means of getting there:

1. stay on topic. try to be concise.
2. try not to involve personal feeling. please be as objective as possible.
3. state facts (statistics) when appropriate. If you don't know off the top of your head, I'll try to look things up if you want.
4. Try to fill in the next part of the outline, which should look like this:

V. Marriage around the world and throughout the ages
A., B., etc. - by country? region? continent? you decide.
If people live in exotic places, I'd like to hear about your marriage there. Any relevant information is appreciated, as I find the topic rather interesting (almost as interesting as world religion! Exciting stuff!).

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, she wasn't

Just because the Catholic church says it, doesn't mean it's true They've reversed themselves before! (no disrespect to the RCC)

Are you teasing, or serious?

My position on Mary's virginity is that she was a virgin until the birth of Christ, which the Bible states and I think is reasonable theologically. After that, I tend to think the straightforward reading of Jesus having brothers and sisters is the most natural and right reading, so she wouldn't have remained a virgin. Also, knowing how God actually COMMANDS husbands and wives to NOT deny each other physically except for SHORT periods for prayer, I just don't see why God would want her to remain a virgin. But the most important thing is that I think it's wrong that the Catholic church has such a strong stance on it - I think they should concentrate on more important things than Mary's sexual status after Jesus was born. That's one major reason why I have problems with the Catholic church.

I'm sorry to drag this back up, but I think it's a little too important to just drop like that Rian (and Nurv.)

"In Part 1, Section Two, The Profession of the Christian Faith, The Creeds, chapter 2, it says:

499 "The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth 'did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sactified it.' And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as AEIPARTHENOS, the 'EVER-VIRGIN'."

It goes on to discuss the claim that Jesus had brothers and sisters and that the Church has never understood those passages to refer to other children of the Virgin Mary.

Catholics may choose not to accept this belief, but this shows clearly, that they would be going against the teachings of the Church."

[Rían]

Tessar - I'll accept what's in the Bible, not necessarily what's in the Roman Catholic Church teachings You need to accept what you think is right, and so do I. I basically go with Martin Luther and say "solo scriptura" (or whatever he said ) If you think you need to accept the teachings of the RCC that are NOT mentioned in the Bible, then that's what you need to do. I don't consider the opinion of the RCC as authoratative as the Bible. That's why I'm not a Catholic. My opinion is that some of their teachings are actually AGAINST things that the Bible says. That's not to say that Catholics are not Christians at all, tho. Just that I disagree with some of their doctrine.

[Nurvingiel]

Who me? Well, I don't think it's unimportant, and it's certainly relevant to the Theology thread... *hint hint*

That was a really brilliant summary Katya! Do you guys want to brainstorm more of III.Why?, because I know we had loads more in the class but I'm fresh out of ideas.

What kind of things to you want for part 5 Katya?

Canada (permanent address) and Sweden (current) don't have anything too super exciting about marriage, except I believe Canada is one of the few countries in which gay marriage is legal, along with the Netherlands, the state of California and a few other states, and several other countries. (I can look up a proper list and references later if this is the sort of thing you want Katya.)

Awesome work!

[katya]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Who me? Well, I don't think it's unimportant, and it's certainly relevant to the Theology thread... *hint hint*

That was a really brilliant summary Katya! Do you guys want to brainstorm more of III.Why?, because I know we had loads more in the class but I'm fresh out of ideas.

What kind of things to you want for part 5 Katya?

Canada (permanent address) and Sweden (current) don't have anything too super exciting about marriage, except I believe Canada is one of the few countries in which gay marriage is legal, along with the Netherlands, the state of California and a few other states, and several other countries. (I can look up a proper list and references later if this is the sort of thing you want Katya.)

Awesome work!

Thank you.^^
Yeah, if you can think of more things for part III, or any other part for that matter, it would be great!
For part 5, I'm thinking this: what constitutes marriage in the particular area, and what are any special traditions, laws, etc.? I'd be especially interested in hearing about places whose customs are a lot different from the European idea of marriage. Anything interesting is worth knowing though.
I don't want to be a dictator or anything, but I just don't want to fill up 14000 pages with the same crap over and over. So this thread belongs to everyone.
I'm a wannabe Canadian by the way.

[inked]

Katya,

Here is a link to what's happened in regard to marriage in Scaninavia that you might find informative (as others):

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/660zypwj.asp

We actually do have data on what happens when marriage is redefined. Not that data seem all that important, what?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Canada (permanent address) and Sweden (current) don't have anything too super exciting about marriage, except I believe Canada is one of the few countries in which gay marriage is legal, along with the Netherlands, the state of California and a few other states, and several other countries.

Gay marriage is NOT legal in the state of California.

I think the only place in the USA where it might shortly become legal is Massachusetts; not sure. But it is definitely NOT legal in California.