Yeah, but the nature of these two unions is quite different, right? And it doesn’t really seem to be that we haven’t evolved yet or reached the technology for fully understanding that concept of take it to perfection. Well… OK, maybe with robots…
Wait, is Trump going to reveal us that rules have exceptions?
I know what you mean, but that’s a bad example. Many words can be used in a metaphorical way and that doesn’t change the nature of the original concept. Right?
Actually I’m not too exposed to direct feminism, thanks God, but it’s like getting closer. And it’s annoying.
Let me put another example (that probably won’t help because you might see it very differently):
Woman with mustachio: I’m a man
Me: Sorry, I’m not the person you think. @yyy is having breakfast now
Woman with mustachio: But look at me, I feel I’m a man!
Me: where did I put my keys?
Woman with mustachio: Where did you say @yyy is?
Me: Sorry, what where you saying?
Woman with mustachio: if I were born as a man, physically, and then I had cut my penis, and we had it for dinner together, the German media would love us
Me: I wish I had more money
Woman with mustachio: A couple of guys met on internet and one went over the other guy’s place and then…
Me: That thing shouldn’t be spelled mustachio, it should be moustache.
For me, I would think it makes more sense. My opinion are that marriage my definition is between man and a woman. That doesn’t disqualify people of same sex being together and having the same rights as the institution of marriage for heterosexual couples.
But I would still put forward the problem of one of the reasons why marriage as a state institution exists is to have children. And yes I know many heterosexual couple don’t. The incentives you give are mostly given because it extends to your children and helps the difficulties of having children. The government absolutely has an interest in people having children, Taiwan and other places gives you tax breaks and subsidies for having children. I think this is an important part of marriage, the future generations.
Perhaps if the government has to partake in controlling marriage and allowing ssm. Having children and adopting children for ssm should be what’s giving couples most of these benefits.
But as you see, that’s another reason I feel not so great about the government being the authority of marriage. They seem to have to get more and more involved in our lives.
I’ve not once said the church. Or any church or house of worship. If I believe that a marriage is covenant between a man and a women in front of god. Than the church as no authority either. I’m talking about the religious or at least general value of marriage. Not the legal contract of 2 people given by the government.
I think you are smart enough to understand figure of speech about the evolutionary drive of men to pass down genetic material. You’ve also completely ignored the utility of marriage as an state institution. And the title of the thread I made is why do men get bashed for no reason I think of a man has 30 children with different women and take no social responsibilities of that. Seems reasonable to be bashed due to the social consequences.
I’m saying what they had was clearly not the same concept of citizenship we have now. Not even close, it’s debatable if we even got the concept from the Greeks. It’s like saying pasta is noodles. Technically it’s kinda true, but we obviously know they are different. Definitions what things are matter.
And yes; I keep saying I think it’s only fair if the state give same sex couples the ability to have the institution of marriage.
I keep saying there are other instances of the concept of marriage over and over again. I’m not saying the judeo Christian concept is the only one, or the definition we must and are using in every context.
We, referring to most western societies, and I’ve already said I’m pro ssm because the definition of marriage I believe in can not be given by the state.
It was a joke as i said. Because it obviously has only been legalized in some places, and only recently. Think 30 years together, most people will drive each other nuts!
Humanity is a work in progress. It’s evolution*, man.
I wish you-know-who would come back. Surely he would have something more to say about his gigantic harem than just “that’s a bad example”.
The Catholic Encyclopaedia notes that such a wedding ceremony “is but the accompaniment and symbol of a purely spiritual grace”, and that “as a wife should share in the life of her husband, and as Christ suffered for the redemption of mankind, the mystical spouse enters into a more intimate participation in His sufferings.”
Saint Catherine of Siena would have been familiar with this story – the Barna da Sienapanel shown was painted in Siena a few years before she was born – and she is recorded as praying as a child that she would have a similar experience, which she eventually did.
A mystical marriage to Christ is also an attribute of Saint Rosa of Lima (died 1617), and many other saints have reported such visions.
As for the original concept, how far back do you want to go?
It’s like saying pasta is noodles. Technically it’s kinda true, but we obviously know they are different. Definitions what things are matter.
What do you think of
adopted family members addressing and referring to each other without the “step-” prefix?
naturalized citizens identifying themselves as “citizens” rather than as “foreigners”?
“But why do they have to use the same word when it’s not the same thing?”
One of the reasons – no argument from me.
And yes I know many heterosexual couple don’t. The incentives you give are mostly given because it extends to your children and helps the difficulties of having children. The government absolutely has an interest in people having children, Taiwan and other places gives you tax breaks and subsidies for having children. I think this is an important part of marriage, the future generations.
I think you’re missing the forest here.
If humans suddenly became unable to reproduce through mating, would it make sense to eliminate the institution of marriage?
If God rules over marriage, but neither the church nor the state is fit to play an administrative role, you need God to be highly interventionist. Otherwise, it’s anarchy, which you said the other day you don’t support.
No I haven’t.
And the title of the thread I made is why do men get bashed for no reason I think of a man has 30 children with different women and take no social responsibilities of that. Seems reasonable to be bashed due to the social consequences.
“For no reason” or “for no good reason”? I don’t have 30 kids with different women. It’s probably rarer than chopping up your ex, if we want to get into that again…
the definition of marriage I believe in can not be given by the state.
What do you think of common law marriage?
Think 30 years together, most people will drive each other nuts!
I know, eh? This site has been going for less than that, and already we’ve seen members have multiple nervous breakdowns, stalking, smurfing, and all kinds of crazy stuff due to people spending so much time with each other. Yet here we are, day after day…
You know what I mean. Many men do have multiple children with different women who aren’t in their lives. I’m not saying it perfectly prevents it. But at least if married, there’s so legal basis for them not being able to do this so easily.
No, that’s not true. You’re thinking I’m saying god is the authority of the state institution of marriage I think. Im saying only god had the authority to recognize two people as married. That’s the definition of the judeo Christian marriage. A covenant in the eyes of god.
I’ve already said since we currently have a state institution of marriage. I’m not against ssm. I just have a problem with calling it a marriage. But that’s not a hill I’m willing to die on.
I don’t know. But by principle a man and women can reproduce.
Because we clearly know the what is what. I call people my brothers till this day and I don’t think anyone is retarded enough to not understand we are no related.
Many of my gay friends refer to their partner as their husband even though they aren’t legally married. I know what they mean.
Many men do this, many men do that, many men are not the majority… I think it’s for another thread.
I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing.
And in general, until the average age of puberty in girls started its rapid descent a century or so ago, children couldn’t have children, yet there were and still are jurisdictions (such as some US states) where child marriage was/is legal, and I mean not just marriage below the age of majority but literally no minimum age. Of course, you might expect them to have kids later, but then there were cases like this.
(I’ll grant that it’s not a story of Judeo-Christian marriage, for whatever that’s worth.)
And in general old women can’t reproduce, but they can get married. Strange, eh?
And there you go again, arguing against yourself.
Or is the word marriage more important than the word husband?
I already told you I do care about the definition of things and they are important. But it’s not a hill I’m ready to die on. I’m not going to start correcting everyone from China calling pasta noodles. I know what they mean.
Did the Mayans play basketball? Basically had the same game.
Marriage is a value system in my eyes. My only problem with the state calling it marriage is that it’s not the definition of marriage in principle. And I don’t want them to take some much control of something that’s of people’s values. You see it with the gay marriage baker incident. I don’t want them to have so much control next they force synagogues, mosques, churches to have to hold them or something like that. Marriage is an important cultural value, and religious one for most people.
I said some can’t and won’t already. But by principle a man and a women can always reproduce. Key word, by principle. A man and man can’t, same as women with women.
Yes it is. According to article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
If you don’t believe it’s a right, under the context of same-sex marriage, there’s still something called “right to non-discrimination”. (re. art. 14 ECHR and other relevant international treaties)
Calling something a marriage is whatever society decides it is. If they want to call same-sex unions marriage, they should be able to. If they want to limit it to opposite sex unions, they should be able to.
This is a separate issue from equal rights, because you can give a same-sex union everything afforded a marriage without calling it such.
In the USA, things like these governing social relationships should be determined by states.
Are you sure about that? in ancient times people got married much earlier than now, and given that life expectancy was way way shorter, it does make sense that humans could reproduce much earlier than now.
Maybe there’s an evolutionary advantage in school girls with big tits, though.
Common misconception–extra mammary fat has little effect on milk production, and other apes lack pendulous breasts. The most likely evolutionary explanation for ample bosoms is cosmetic, perhaps to mimic the shape of the buttocks once humans began walking upright.
On the marriage issue, traditional societies exhibit a wide variety of marriage behavior. People on both sides of the gay issue tend to react with horror to polygamy, which is probably the most widespread alternative (and permitted by several well-known religious texts).
I think we need to make clear and separate civil marriage and religious marriage to continue the conversation.
So, it’s fine if your friends claim to be married, and it’s fine if the state treats them as married, but it’s wrong if the state calls them married, because that offends Yahweh’s intentionally imperfect biological design plan. Is that a fair summary?
(Speaking of God’s plans and principles, how do you feel about couples who could get married but instead choose to live in sin?)
If we’re going to separate religious and civil marriage, though, all kinds of problems are going to arise.
In Thailand for example, you can have a traditional marriage ceremony, witnessed by a whole village, which makes you married according to popular opinion, but the state doesn’t care. (Of course, if only Judeo-Christian marriage is valid in the eyes of God, very few people in a 95% Buddhist country are ever going to be truly married.)
In Canada (iirc – not claiming any expertise here), a religious marriage and a civil marriage are equally valid under the law, but you can’t just claim you were married by a Pastafarian minister – that minister needs to register with the government, have his/her name is a public list (so you can make sure you aren’t being scammed), and follow some basic rules.
At a nit-picking level, that means the state is interfering with the church. (What if your religion is anti-government and views the registration of ministers as a sin?) At another level, it’s a necessary degree of bureaucracy in an orderly society.
As long as the state is handling your visa applications, your tax affairs, the birth certificates of your children, etc., and using different rules for married and unmarried people in those matters, it needs to keep track of who’s married and who isn’t, and it needs clear rules for how a marriage can be performed (and terminated).
So, as long as the state exists and handles taxes etc., and as long as all religions (and atheism and agnosticism) are equal before the law, there isn’t really any room for the this-type-of-marriage-would-offend-my-deity argument or the the-state-shouldn’t-say-who-can-and-can’t-get-married argument. And the state does exist in that way, and all religions are (basically) equal before the law, which is the price you pay for living in a society with a high degree of religious freedom. (Or it’s the price you don’t pay for living in a state with compulsory Sharia law for the majority, as the case may be.)
I’m not saying child marriage was ever the normal thing for humans in general, but I am saying it was a thing. It still is in a few places, even after being banned.
But it’s perceived as having an effect, which is an evolutionary advantage in itself.
Exactly. It’s not the business of the state to be making religious determinations about things. We’re talking about a legal arrangement that’s not happening in your church and has nothing to do with your church. If you want something more than that, do it in your church or backyard and do it how you like. Slippery-slope arguments only carry as much weight as they do–let us know when someone is forcing something into your church. I’m sure that will go well.
Strange, eh?
)