22 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by kirksey957Marriage has been watered down it does not carry the same meaning
On some level, marriage is an emotional snake pit of generations of wounds where two people try to come together for some healing.
Because of this, obviously not every one will work out. Be that as it may, there are some relationships/marriages that serve a purpose for a limited time and there are others that are for life.
I kind of like what the Q that while we get married to a person, there is a larger community that we are part of as well.
as it once did, even Jesus got on those during his time as a man
for watering it down too. People do not keep their word now days,
what was true yesterday may not be today, what is true today may
not be tomorrow with mankind, our feelings now mean more than
our words do, which is a very bad thing in my opinion.
The break down of marriage is not the only place where we see our
lack of commitment and accountability playing out. We don't like
being held accountable so we look for ways out, we like what we like
and if it means breaking a commitment, so be it, till something else
comes along, than the next thing, than the next thing, or person,
whatever it takes to make us happy, NOW.
Kelly
22 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayAn epistemology that bemoans this is an impoverished one.
what was true yesterday may not be today, what is true today may
not be tomorrow with mankind
For example, as early as the times of Leviticus and as recent as two centuries ago, it was true that enslaving people was an accepted practice among mankind. Today it is not true that enslaving people is an accepted practice. Is it your claim that this is a bad thing, and that what was true then should have stayed true, merely in virtue of once being true?
A better epistemology is one that allows beliefs about what is true to adopt in accommodation of new information that makes prior beliefs more likely to be false than true. It is simply a matter of fact that reality changes, and to the extent that beliefs are nothing more than our mental representations of reality, adhering to one set of unchanging beliefs necessarily leads to delusion.
22 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by kingdanwaBefore we were 'cultured' in some fashion (i.e., somewhere between chimps and us, closer to the
I like where you're going with this. Could you give a little more detail about what you mean by "Civic marriage?" Is this merely a matter of public opinion, a blend of various religious beliefs, or some sort of "natural law?"
Similarly, how does this relate to the nearly universality of the institution of marriage in all cultures (regardless of religious affiliation)?
chimp end of things), males essentially impregnated women forcibly. However, the period of
time between birth and an age when the offspring was able to fend for itself grew. This meant
a mother could be caring for two or three relatively defensless offspring at one time. This was
disadvantageous (obviously). So, because of biological pressure, men who stayed with their
mates and helped protect them with the mother did better than those who didn't and consequently
their offspring (and genes!) survived and continued.
Let's call this 'Biological Proto-Marriage.' This is the impetus for life-long companionship.
Now, keep in mind that proto-humans (like humans) were fully group oriented; this is different
than most apes and chimps (and the animal kingdom). That is, sexually mature males were
allowed to stay within the group rather than being driven from it by the alpha male. This is
because male (proto-)humans hunting in groups are much more effective than alone.
But this causes a problem: Males are biologically promiscuous, striving to spread the seed, and
when there are many sexually mature males, competetion is bound to happen. And, since the
females need their males to raise offspring, we have a problem. Enter unilateral monogamy
(that is, women staying with one male, as opposed to bilateral monogamy [male-female pairs]).
Keeping in mind that proto-humans (and humans for most of history) were patriarchal, males
acquire females (as chattle...) and keep them as their own and a simple moral code is formed.
Call this 'Cultural Marriage.'
To summarize so far: Biological Proto-Marriage arose because parents were needed to successfully
raise offspring. Cultural Marriage arose to reduce competetion amongst sexually mature males
(and ensure the passing on of genetic material within).
This accounts for the universiality of unilateral monogamous marriage across cultures, because
all humans are biologically 'interested' in preserving their own genetic line. It's inherent to us
as a species.
Now, 'Civic Marriage' may have it's roots in these biological impeti, but that is neither its aim
nor focus. Civic Marriage is about according protection and rights to a bilateral monogamous
relationship within the constructs of the current legal system. That is, there is no biological
justification for 'Death Tax' or 'Medical Proxy.' These are social conventions that are a
product of a specific sociological construct. We, as a society, have deemed it proper and just
for a husband to make decisions for his incapacitated wife. We, as a society, have deemed it
proper for a husband to receive his wife's property without penalty if she should die. These
have no biological precedent. They are purely social.
So, the question is, does government have any business getting involved in this in the first
place? The answer is most surely: no. But, given that they are involved and will most certainly
remain involved, we must ask: is there any just reason why these rights should be afforded to
only male-female pairs?
Again, the answer is: no. The elements of Civic marriage are not biological driven; there is
no 'natural' to which one can appeal. As biological creatures, the vast majority of us married
folk are not even engaging our biological imperative to reproduce often as our ancestors did;
we're using birth control or abstaining (something that proto-human males simply did not do;
women simply didn't have much choice in the matter, headache or not). Civic marriage purely
deals with property, children, and proxy rights. Issues pertaining to biology are absolutely
irrelevant; that is, we've long since stepped out of a framework in which biological arguments
are relevant. For example, biologically speaking, for the majority of proto-human (and most
of non-human) history, rape was the primary form of impregnation. It would of course be absurd
to try to justify rape as civicly or morally permissible on the basis of biology.
So, I would encourage you to divorce yourself of any biological arguments when trying to
examine Civic Marriage.
Nemesio
22 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDid you see me say slavery should have stayed a practice we kept
An epistemology that bemoans this is an impoverished one.
For example, as early as the times of Leviticus and as recent as two centuries ago, it was true that enslaving people was an accepted practice among mankind. Today it is not true that enslaving people is an accepted practice. Is it your claim that this is a bad thing, and that what was true then should have stayed true, merely in virtue of once being true?
going in what I wrote, any where at all? For crying out loud, how the
hell did you get we do not keep our words and turn that into
something like that?
I don't know I guess I have been here way to long.
Kelly
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayBy way of explanation:
Did you see me say slavery should have stayed a practice we kept
going in what I wrote, any where at all? For crying out loud, how the
hell did you get we do not keep our words and turn that into
something like that?
He was saying that simply because the definition marriage was X yesterday doesn't mean it
ought to be X today. Just like the definition of which group of people have a right to be free
can rightfully change (from, say, Levitical times).
Nemesio
22 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayMy point is merely that "what was true yesterday may not be today, what is true today may not be tomorrow with mankind" is only characterized as "a very bad thing" by somebody with a fundamentally flawed epistemology.
Did you see me say slavery should have stayed a practice we kept
going in what I wrote, any where at all? For crying out loud, how the
hell did you get we do not keep our words and turn that into
something like that?
I don't know I guess I have been here way to long.
Kelly
22 Oct 07
In Zambia there are two types of legal marriage. The imported English version which requires one man and one woman to enter what is essentially a legal contract. Then there is the 'traditional marriage' which allows for polygamy and generally gives much less legal rights to the woman as the rules are defined by 'tradition' which in reality is a flexible rule system mostly controlled by men.
Some people get married in Church as many priests are licensed marriage officers, but those who attend Churches which do not have licensed marriage officers may have a Church ceremony and do the legal thing at the civic center.
As for what marriage truly is, the answer is that it is different for every single couple (or more if polygamous), but it generally includes a legal contract, a social contract, a public declaration of intent and a private commitment between individuals.
There is a tendency for some religious people to claim that marriage is entirely religious in nature and as such they can dictate the rules to everyone. There also seems to be some fear that if for example gay marriage is allowed then it will taint everybody else's marriage.
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by kingdanwaYou can define marriage any way you please. In fact, you could provide your own definition even though no one on the face of the planet may agree with you. What it comes down to is who is in authority over you to decide such things. Really, it comes down to ones morality which is dictated by those you percieve are in authority over you. If you do not percieve any authority over you then you such as society, government, God, then you become that authority and you will then decide what you believe is best for you.
Does "Jesus' definition" apply only to Christians? On what basis do non-Christians define marriage?
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by NemesioIf you say so. 😉
[b]This is actually not Jesus' definition of marriage, but a response to whether Jesus permitted
divorce. Jesus doesn't exclude any other permutations (Male-Male, Female-Female), nor does
He say that God wouldn't join them together and form one flesh of two such individuals.
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat pray tell do we/you use to figure out who are the flawed ones,
My point is merely that "what was true yesterday may not be today, what is true today may not be tomorrow with mankind" is only characterized as "a very bad thing" by somebody with a fundamentally flawed epistemology.
the ones that simply do not agree with us/you?
Kelly
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI always find such broad statements to be totally unsupportable. When you say "once did", how long ago are you referring to? Are you referring to a particular culture / group of people or the whole world in general? When you say it doesn't carry the same "meaning" do you mean it holds less meaning now? For whom? For you, your friends, or for everyone alive today? Marriage is treated differently in different societies everywhere in the world and those cultural / religious differences have always been there and are always changing. Your implication that it is somehow getting worse is totally unfounded however.
Marriage has been watered down it does not carry the same meaning
as it once did, ...
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are of the opinion that marriages do not fall apart with more
I always find such broad statements to be totally unsupportable. When you say "once did", how long ago are you referring to? Are you referring to a particular culture / group of people or the whole world in general? When you say it doesn't carry the same "meaning" do you mean it holds less meaning now? For whom? For you, your friends, or for everyone aliv ...[text shortened]... hanging. Your implication that it is somehow getting worse is totally unfounded however.You
regularity than they used too in the past?
Kelly
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyI'm just observing precisely what Jesus said in the context in which the Gospels record that He
If you say so. 😉
said it. If you can see an explicit prohibition on same-sex pairing in Jesus' sayings, that would
be news to me.
However, Jesus' response about male-female pairing was a direct reply about divorce, something
that necessarily had male-female pairing at the time. To extrapolate that Jesus' forbade homosexuality
is a stretch at best. Further, simply because it may have been forbidden back then doesn't mean
that it would be forbidden today. For a justification for this, see our conversation regarding
hair style.
Nemesio
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayOf course they fall apart more today: women are no longer property and woman is no longer a
You are of the opinion that marriages do not fall apart with more
regularity than they used too in the past?
Kelly
social outcast for being a divorceé.
What is very telling is that the divorce rate among those who classify themselves as Christian isn't
statistically distinct from those who do not, even though there is an unequivocal Jesus-made
prohibition on divorce. I'd be willing to bet that amongst the so-called Christians that frequent
this site over fifty, there is at least one or two people who have gotten a divorce.
Nemesio