quote:Originally posted by Kwea: So is posting on Hatrack. What's you point?
Communicating with other people using technology is not "unnatural." The act of communication isn't unnatural. The act of using/creating technology isn't unnatural either (for humans.)
quote: he interesting thing about this response is that you can make it and still think you've got the moral high ground.
Why should I concede moral superiority to those trying to legitimize a social and biological abnormality as healthy and acceptable?
Show me where using a computer to communicate happens in the wild (naturally) and I'll concede the point. It is natural (maybe) for humans to talk to other humans face to face. Using an electronic device to communicate with people you will never meet, all based on a similar taste in books isn't a natural impulse. It is an unnatural act....but not a bad one, or something to be avoided.
Which was my point.
Define deviant, because I doubt you understand the actual meaning of the word. We are all deviating from the norm just by posting on this site.
quote:Define deviant, because I doubt you understand the actual meaning of the word.
He doesn't (see my big edit on page one woohoo). He's just slotting it as a word that means "objectively wrong"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clive is just particularly adamant about his very weak, easily refuted position. Does that make him a troll if he's genuine about his beliefs?
Samprimary, I was willing to entertain that possibility until he likened homosexuality to as unequivocally bad as missing fingers. It's such a profoundly stupid argument that I can't believe it's not either intentional, or willful, if you understand the distinction.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you really trying to justify the treatment of certain law abiding, tax paying, American citizens by saying ONE aspect of who they are is not up to YOUR standards? Really? Of course they are legitimate... as long as their parents were married when they were born. Dumb question = dumb answer. Also, your assumtion that gay males have more sex than a Vegas showgirl makes me giggle!
Posts: 204 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clive is just particularly adamant about his very weak, easily refuted position. Does that make him a troll if he's genuine about his beliefs?
Samprimary, I was willing to entertain that possibility until he likened homosexuality to as unequivocally bad as missing fingers. It's such a profoundly stupid argument that I can't believe it's not either intentional, or willful, if you understand the distinction.
Only if you're meaning "he is being dumb on purpose." Y'know, to purposefully get a rise out of the community for his own entertainment.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
1) If you're concerned about the side effects of promiscuity on the stability of gay relationships, I think you should be encouraging gay marriage. The institution will encourage and incentivize monogamy. It's nice of you to be concerned about the emotional health of the gays, and I think encouraging governmentally and socially endorsed unions is probably the best way to limit promiscuity that might otherwise have some damaging consequences.
2) As for being sick/confused, I'd have to challenge you to demonstrate a pathology that is actually independent of societal condemnation and punishment of homosexuality.
3) Duh, gay couples can't reproduce by themselves, without some advanced technology. So what. More legacy for the heteros, eh? (And to the extent that surrogacy and technological workarounds exist, the ability to reproduce argument becomes entirely irrelevant.) Either it's a limitation that needs no extra reinforcement in order to protect your preferred 'legacy', or it's not actually that much of a limitation, in which case you'd have to show why anybody should give a damn about the reproductive precedent. (Further, it can easily be argued that high population density makes non-reproductive sexuality an advantageous adaptation. It could save the human race! For many reasons the "they can't reproduce so obviously it is a bad thing to encourage" line of argument is a non starter.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:2) As for being sick/confused, I'd have to challenge you to demonstrate a pathology that is actually independent of societal condemnation and punishment of homosexuality.
oh oh I can field this one.
- BEING GAY, which is unnatural and deviant. these words somehow mean that it is a pathology.
what do i win
quote:3) Duh, gay couples can't reproduce by themselves, without some advanced technology.
technology you say.
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: The act of using/creating technology isn't unnatural either (for humans.)
phew! all disagreements of opinion RECONCILED.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by just_me: If my wife is hit by a car and in the hospital I can go there, tell them I'm her husband and we're married, show no other proof and be admitted to see her.
A gay man with a civil union going to see his partner in the same situation better have his "civil union" paperwork in hand and his lawyer on speed dial.
In Florida, even with the paperwork showing a that you have signed over right to make medical decisions to your gay lover, the gay lover will probably be denied. And that paperwork costs a lot more in legal fees then a marriage license.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
My father is an attorney and he has many times made up that paperwork. It's not easy and it's not cheap. That's one of my biggest beefs with those who oppose SSM. From what I've seen, it is currently much more expensive to get a same-sex equivalent to marriage than it is to get a normal marriage.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive, sorry for the gang up on you. Its just that most of your arguments, while fresh from Seminary and Conservative Radio, seem strong, we've encountered them before.
And much to Mr. Card's chagrin this is not another bastion of conservativism.
Your first question is best answered by turning it around. Why do gay people insist on being married? Because they are in love.
Not lust.
Not perverted passion.
Two men or two women can and do love each other as deeply as some men and women love each other. And those in love want to take that commitment to the next level--to make it public and where their faith allows, to make it sacred.
That involves marriage.
I am not one of those gay couples. My wife and I have a nice 20+ year marriage, completely heterosexual. Yes, we do occasionally enjoy some of those same acts that you call unclean and perverse. Hey, any way that another woman could please my wife is a way I think I can. (Unless its doing the dishes. I know that would make my wife ecstatic, but I'm not sure as a man I can pull off that bit of housework)
What concerns me is that you seem to base your arguments on the fact that homosexual sex is not reproductive sex.
The men and women who partake in it do so for only one reason--pleasure. Not to increase the surplus population but just for the fun of it.
Admittedly they do so in ways that you don't find fun, so I can see how you can disagree with it.
They find it enjoyable.
Your argument, however, is not that it shouldn't be enjoyable but that it shouldn't be just enjoyable. Any sex act that does not lead to conception is unnatural and deviant.
My wife and I are unable to have children. Hence any sex act that we partake in is, under this definition, unnatural and deviant.
Will you be coming after us to end our marriage next? We didn't hit our reproduction quota?
You argued above that its not our fault that nature doesn't allow us to produce children. We are allowed to get married, and I assume to have sex and enjoy it, even though its unnatural since we now know that it won't fulfill nature's purpose--reproduction.
With homosexuals, however, that is not the case. Nature doesn't allow them to have children and they know this before seeking marriage. Hence, they should not be allowed to get married.
I'm still unclear how not being allowed to get married will undercut their homosexual sex. They can still legally have there deviant sex, but just not be married.
But if homosexuality is as unnatural as being born with only 9 fingers, or with a tail, or as conjoined twins, do we limit who these unnatural folks can marry? After all its only through marriage and reproduction that they could pass on their unnaturalness to the world, so shouldn't we limit them?
But why punish them when its something that is not their fault?
That means that homosexuality is the individual's fault. They are guilty of having sexual feelings for members of the same sex. They should just stop that. Right?
What if they can't? What if it is something genetic? Studies have been far from convincing in either case. Should we err on the side of love or on the side of dogma?
What if they are really in love? Does love matter? Can you really tell when someone else is in love and when they aren't?
But back to my wife and I. We have a loving marriage with all the benefits. We cannot produce children but we still have sexual relations. We enjoy them. You said that was fine since we are not a threat to the natural order of Sex for Reproduction as Nature intended.
Aren't we?
Aren't we demonstrating to everyone who limits their frolics to reproductive moments that, hey, this stuff can be fun and not a duty?
no, Clive. If you insist that Marriage is based on ones ability to reproduce then I fear for my marriage.
And the marriage of my Mother-in-law. She is well past menopause. She met a man at the senior center. They get along well. They got married. They consummated that marriage. The act was one that most find disgusting in the elderly. There is 0% chance of children. Should we deny marriage in the elderly as well? After all, they are doing it for unnatural and deviant reasons.
Like having someone you respect and appreciate to hold and cuddle with on long cold nights.
Just like many gay couples do.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darth Mauve- in one of the series I am reading, the king could dissolve your marriage and order you both to try again with someone else. It works in fantasy, I am sure it will work in real life.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive, like Darth said, it is a lost cause. No matter what you post, people here will rip it down. We have had numerous topics regarding SSM, and none of them really end well for those opposing it. Less and less people with a conservative view point end up posting on the forums due to this.
There are still a few here that are conservative thinkers however. I like being in the minority, it keeps things more interesting. Plus there are plenty of non-political topics on the forums that I enjoy talking to people about.
My personal feelings on the whole SSM thing is:
1) Everyone has free will to do what they want
2) Government should stay out of ALL of my private affairs (This includes health care, but that is a different topic)
3) As long as I don't have to pay for something, have it shoved down mine or my children's throats, or forced to accept it, then what you do is your choice, unless it hurts people, in which case I have an obligation to fight against that behavior.
On the other hand, being religious, I don't believe I should judge those who have differing opinions or thoughts than me. That is God's right.
It all comes down to this dilemma. I may believe that something is not natural or is hurtful to someone, but another person may think it is harmless. Who then decides? Both sides can argue forever, but the reality is that the only way to decide what is harmful or not, or what is socially acceptable or not, is the majority of the people.
Now even though some scientists say that it is "natural" for homosexuality to occur, the same argument could be made to people that are attracted to young children. Yet this is a socially unacceptable behavior that is not tolerated. (On a side note, everyone knows that scientists are always correct, always objective, and always agree with each other. Especially psychologists! Am I right?)
I know most of you will disagree with me and say that it is completely different, but I want to know how? I really want to read a good reason why one is acceptable and the other isn't.
I feel you will have just as difficult time explaining this that those that oppose SSM do.
Women married young in the middle ages and even into the early 1900's. It was not uncommon for a man to marry a 13 year old, or a 16 year old. That was just how things were done. The man was not branded a pervert or a pedophile, that was just how society was. But NOW in society it is frowned upon, and even hugging someone that is under the age of 18 that is not your relative can get you branded a pervert and thrown in jail for statutory rape.
It could be argued that some people in the homosexual agenda ARE also trying to legitimize pedophilia through groups like NAMBLA.
The same could be said for polygamy. This is another example of a behavior that was socially accepted thousands of years ago that is no longer accepted in modern society.
So I ask again how homosexuality is different? Homosexuality is simply something that has been socially unacceptable in the past that some groups are trying to legitimize. Please help me understand Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now even though some scientists say that it is "natural" for homosexuality to occur, the same argument could be made to people that are attracted to young children. Yet this is a socially unacceptable behavior that is not tolerated.
Yes. By the same token, it is unnatural for people to be left-handed or albino. Left-handers can write with their right hand, but we naively tolerate them when they choose to immorally write with their sinister hand. Clearly this is a mistake.
quote:I know most of you will disagree with me and say that it is completely different, but I want to know how? I really want to read a good reason why one is acceptable and the other isn't.
We have defined "minors" as a group who, among other things, are not capable of granting informed consent. As a consequence, sexual contact with a minor cannot be consensual sex. Do you believe that there is no obvious distinction between censuring non-consensual sex and censuring consensual homosexual sex?
quote:It could be argued that some people in the homosexual agenda ARE also trying to legitimize pedophilia through groups like NAMBLA.
Could be argued? It's the absolute truth. That's what the group is for. They point out, as you have pointed out, that our decision as a society to define consensual sex so narrowly is one that, due to its somewhat arbitrary age-based rules, will always have unfair edge cases. Surely a really mature 14-year-old should be allowed to have sex?
The issue is one of demonstrable harm. We have loads of demonstrable harm in the case of non-consensual sex, incest, pedophilic sex, etc. There's not an awful lot of demonstrable harm in the case of homosexual sex.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now even though some scientists say that it is "natural" for homosexuality to occur, the same argument could be made to people that are attracted to young children. Yet this is a socially unacceptable behavior that is not tolerated. (On a side note, everyone knows that scientists are always correct, always objective, and always agree with each other. Especially psychologists! Am I right?)
I know most of you will disagree with me and say that it is completely different, but I want to know how? I really want to read a good reason why one is acceptable and the other isn't.
The reasoning has been posted here many, many times. With homosexuality, both people in the relationship are adults who, in the eyes of the law and most people I know, are able to understand what they are doing and are responsible for their actions. With children, they are not yet mature, in the eyes of the law and most people I know, and thus not able to consent. Thus, anyone having a sexual relationship with a child is imposing their will on a child who cannot fully understand what it happening, and therefore cannot give consent.
ETA: Or what Tom said.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we're going at this debate the wrong way. Trying to convince Clive that homosexuality is okay seems to be a lost battle.
I'm curious on the other hand, why he thinks marriage itself is a static construct that can't be changed. Marriage is unnatural. Monogamy is unnatural. Humans are one of the extreme minority of creatures that mate for life, and even then, we're often not very good at it. I'd find it interesting that marriage was created independently of cultural interaction all over the globe if not for the fact that in most non-Aegean cultures, "marriage" meant "ownership" of the women in question. And Greek culture wasn't always free from that either, it's just that I can think of some good examples off the top of my head, like Laconia.
Anyway, marriage was invented so men would have a legal rationale to own their wives. Eventually we've decided this is acceptable, because family units are essential in the rearing of children, which unlike other species on Earth, require an incredibly large amount of energy and attention for a very long time before they are able to survive on their own.
Through the years, women eventually stopped being actual chattel, but were still legally controlled by their husbands. America was never as harsh on wives as present day Middle Eastern countries are, but they couldn't vote, drive cars, engage in social functions without their husband's permission, and weren't in control of any real amount of money. The phrase "pin money" comes from the fact that all women were allowed to carry around with them was enough money to buy a pin for their hats.
But our ideas of marriage underwent a couple of massive evolutionary changes in the last couple hundred years. First, wives slowly ceased to be unequal partners in marriage. They gained considerable control of the family finances during the World Wars, a trend that was arrested during the 50s and 60s and then went back the other way again by the 90s. Social revolution happened, and now the idea of a woman's role in a marriage is an open-ended question, to be defined by the couple themselves rather than by social norm. That's a radical redefinition of marriage roles from a hundred years ago. Second, people marry for love. It used to be that marriage was primarily a financial arrangement. You married the wealthiest person you possibly could, for that person could give you the best life. But in an age where survival, in America at least, is considerably easier for the average person than it was in the 1930s, people marry for love, not for money.
Marriage isn't natural. And as we've also discovered through American history, it's also not static. Today we've decided that marriage is a good thing, because families are stabilizing influences on our society as a whole. But a marriage doesn't automatically mean child rearing like it used to. Modern society means family planning. People can choose not to have kids, or to delay having them until much later in life, and they can limit the number they have.
So, if the family isn't static, and it's not about wealth, and it is about love, and it's not dependent upon the production of viable offspring, then why can't gays marry? If anything, in American society, creating a new influx of stable homes in which to raise a large number of children who currently have no homes would be a boon to marriage. If, as opponents argue, the purpose of family is to rear children, then here you have a ready made situation of people who biologically cannot have children of their own (well, unless they turn to alternatives), and may well want them. Now we've added to a deficient pool of stable homes, which children without homes or families can draw from. This meets the original definition of marriage; child rearing, but also takes into consideration modern applications of marriage to our society.
I think from this we can only conclude that not only is gay marriage acceptable, it's preferable to not having it at all. I'd also add that, in our society, you need a reason to make something illegal, not to make it legal. You have to list the specific harms that you believe homosexuality causes, otherwise it must be legal.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main difference between, say, homosexuality and something like pedophilia when it comes to the whole "unacceptable sexual practices" aspect is consent.
Two consenting adults of the same sex having a relationship with each other, and indeed sex, is not at all the same as one adult having sex with a child, who cannot consent legally and is usually raped in such situations in a non-statutory fashion anyway.
Over the age of 13 it gets harder, murkier and less pleasant, but I am not one to condone Saudi Arabia's views on the matter, even if I am seriously uncomfortable with some of the statutory rape cases involving older teens.
There needs to be some reforms on the matter to deal with the excesses of the system.
But back to my point:
having urges towards pedophilia in and of itself might (I say only might, only theoretically) not be harmful, but you cannot act on it with a consenting partner.
While homosexual rape certainly happens, heterosexual rape also happens. In general, both are between consenting adults, and don't involve rape, statutory or otherwise.
That difference, consent, is why people of sound mind won't ever go from supporting SSM to supporting pedophilia.
Of course, people of sound mind aren't always easy to come by, but that's a different problem.
As for polygamy... well, though polygamy as usually practiced tends to have some serious abuses inherent in it, it seems to me that if between adults and not with child brides as seems too common, it isn't necessarily bad.
But I'm pretty sure that's a social movement for a later generation.
quote: It all comes down to this dilemma. I may believe that something is not natural or is hurtful to someone, but another person may think it is harmless. Who then decides? Both sides can argue forever, but the reality is that the only way to decide what is harmful or not, or what is socially acceptable or not, is the majority of the people.
Well, no, that's not actually the system we have here in the United States, thankfully. The 'majority decides' only when they decide to put it into state and the federal constitution, at least in the sense you're meaning 'the majority decides'.
Unfortunately, socially conservative politicians are really good at whipping up fear on this issue - though in fact it's probably just that there is so much fear on this issue, it's easy to whip up - so for the time being, at least, it's not been too difficult for stuff to get added to constitutions.
quote: Now even though some scientists say that it is "natural" for homosexuality to occur, the same argument could be made to people that are attracted to young children. Yet this is a socially unacceptable behavior that is not tolerated. (On a side note, everyone knows that scientists are always correct, always objective, and always agree with each other. Especially psychologists! Am I right?)
What you're doing here is shifting the argument. The claim being made is that homosexuality is 'unnatural', not that it's objectionable. That claim is made of course, but it doesn't bear on whether or not it's natural or unnatural. What some folks are doing is pointing out that this one oft-repeated argument in opposition to legalizing SSM - that is, that homosexuality is 'unnatural' - is untrue.
Homosexuality is a naturally occurring sexual activity, both among human beings and among animals. Why it's naturally occurring is subject to debate-that it is naturally occurring, however, is not.
The argument that just because it's natural doesn't mean we should do it doesn't fly. That's hardly a fundamental argument in favor of legalizing SSM, which is a good thing, because it's a stupid argument. Of course we shouldn't do something just because it occurs naturally. Murder and rape could easily be argued to be a part of the 'natural human condition'-we must do our best to weed them out wherever and whenever we find them.
quote: I know most of you will disagree with me and say that it is completely different, but I want to know how? I really want to read a good reason why one is acceptable and the other isn't.
Here's a real concrete question that can be answered. The reason homosexuality between consenting adults is different from pedophilia is because of the important word in the first and the only word in the second. The important word in the first isn't homosexuality or adults, it's consenting. The important word in the second is the only word, pedophilia, which by definition cannot be consented to, any more than a child can legally or morally consent to a tricky financial contract.
One involves the violation of a child's mind, body, and I believe (though this is a personal, religious belief) spirit. The other involves...well, maybe it's wrong, but I'm a Christian, and us Christians believe lots of things are wrong, and that everyone everywhere does lots of things wrong.
The reason homosexuality between consenting adults should be acceptable when pedophilia should not is that any fair-minded investigation of pedophilia will turn up its many negative effects, whereas only an agenda-oriented investigation will turn up the harmful effects of consenting homosexuality. You don't have to already believe in the harmful effects of pedophilia to discover them once you look into it. You do have to already believe in the harmful effects of consenting homosexuality to discover them once you look into it.
quote: I feel you will have just as difficult time explaining this that those that oppose SSM do.
Well, not really. The difficulty lies, frankly, in opponents of SSM not believing in the American experiment to the extent that they ought to. And no, the American experiment isn't just, "The majority rules." There's more to it than that. There's also the part about the majority minding its own business with respect to affairs that don't harm the majority.
quote: Women married young in the middle ages and even into the early 1900's. It was not uncommon for a man to marry a 13 year old, or a 16 year old. That was just how things were done. The man was not branded a pervert or a pedophile, that was just how society was. But NOW in society it is frowned upon, and even hugging someone that is under the age of 18 that is not your relative can get you branded a pervert and thrown in jail for statutory rape.
Well, this is just silly. I'm guessing you're indulging in some hypberbole, but no one, anywhere, ever, has been convicted of statutory rape just for hugging an underaged non-relative. And as for the question of women marrying young, yes that was the way society was.
Another way society was was that women were relegated from birth to secondary roles in society. That whole marrying young thing, for other reasons as well as social ones, factored into this.
quote: So I ask again how homosexuality is different? Homosexuality is simply something that has been socially unacceptable in the past that some groups are trying to legitimize. Please help me understand [Frown]
Because in this country you're supposed to have a better reason for interfering in another person's private life than 'God says so', which ultimately is the only persuasive argument in opposition to SSM there is. The supposed rational, secular arguments against aren't nearly as persuasive as those for SSM.
Sure, homosexuality is a behavior that in the past has been socially unacceptable that some groups are trying to legitimize. Please help me understand why that should be a persuasive argument in favor of not doing so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to point out that being Conservative does not always equal being against SSM. Obama has stated he is against SSM and believes a marriage is between a man and a woman although he would not overturn state laws which allow SSM.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in my defense I did say social conservatives. I guess there probably are some social conservatives who don't oppose or even support efforts to legalize SSM, but I suspect they're as much a minority among social conservatives as social conservatives are among the whole citizenry.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What was a woman's life expectancy in the Middle Ages? That's why she married at 13. Not so much true today.
Posts: 204 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriage was invented so that men could own their wives?
I think you'll find that it is women who are more in support of marriage and men who are not.
Women want commitment from men, they want men to be faithful, to be exclusive. They are also the more faithful ones and the ones less likely to cheat.
Marriage may be "unnatural" for men, if by unnatural, you mean less desirable than frolicking and spreading seed. But if you take a social evolutionist perspective, it is possible that we developed the family unit because it was the most successful unit for procreation and for advancing the species.
From a moral perspective (excluding the religious perspective), marriage probably leads to the most happiness in terms of commitment, long term relationship, family, loyalty, etc.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look at marriage at its beginning, Armoth. It was an arrangment between a woman's father and bridegroom. An exchang of goods. For example, "work for me for 7 years and you can marry my daughter".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was an example of a marriage contract in the beginning. Hardly the first marriage.
And if you want to go into it further, it wasn't exactly a business deal. The father had the right of refusal because he had to protect his daughter, and in that circumstance, he extorted...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marriage was invented so that men could own their wives?
Who said that? All I pointed out was that very young wives, by modern standards, went part and parcel with a lot of other things that are either inapplicable in today's society (life expectancy) or undesirable (submissive wives).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was an example of a marriage, but the exchange of goods or services for a daughter was the pattern of marriage. It still is in some places. A Maasai once offered an extravagant number of cows in exchange for me.
quote:Marriage was invented so that men could own their wives?
Who said that? All I pointed out was that very young wives, by modern standards, went part and parcel with a lot of other things that are either inapplicable in today's society (life expectancy) or undesirable (submissive wives).
I did.
It might have been an overstatement, and it's certainly not universal (but then I didn't claim it was), but in the days of women-as-chattel, and as relating to where American marriage comes from historically going back a thousand years, it is what it is.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Anyway, marriage was invented so men would have a legal rationale to own their wives.
KMB: Jews still get married that way. Where do you think the ring came from? Giving the ring to a woman was a form of "purchase." Furthermore, a marriage is invalid without a contract stipulating business terms.
However - all these are symbolic of the commitment a man is supposed to have toward a woman, and of his duties to her. IMO, i think that it raises marriage beyond a social mechanism involving communal recognition that you are in a monogamous sexual relationship. It is about the acceptance of a man's responsibility to care and provide for his wife.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What was a woman's life expectancy in the Middle Ages? That's why she married at 13. Not so much true today.
You've probably been told it was somewhere around 30. Life expectancy is a very misleading statistic, and heavily influenced by infant and child mortality. If a woman lived to be 13, she did NOT consider her life almost half over. She could expect to live well into middle (or even old) age if she made it to 13.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: And you turned him down!?!
He wasn't offering it to me. That is the point. I was goods in this situation. It was not up to me to decide. Fortunately, the man who was offered the cows recognized that I did not belong to him and declined to make the deal.
ETA: My father (who was not there) still claims that he should have been consulted. It was a lot of cows. Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: However - all these are symbolic of the commitment a man is supposed to have toward a woman, and of his duties to her. IMO, i think that it raises marriage beyond a social mechanism involving communal recognition that you are in a monogamous sexual relationship. It is about the acceptance of a man's responsibility to care and provide for his wife.
That's all well and good, but in addition to the symbolic, ideal meanings, we also have to look at the actual practice in life.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That was an example of a marriage, but the exchange of goods or services for a daughter was the pattern of marriage. It still is in some places. A Maasai once offered an extravagant number of cows in exchange for me.
Oddly enough, it was a Maasai man who offered quite a few cows for my younger sister, my mother refused for her, that's how controlling she is!
But in all seriousness Kate, how do you feel about Adam and Eve's marriage? To me it isn't remotely like what you described. Is that not an early example of marriage?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BB, I am not a biblical literalist.
You don't have to be a Biblical literalist to see the description of how their marriage functioned. Unless Moses was some sort of feminist writing to a community that just didn't agree with him, or unless the oral histories got muddled somehow with a progressive streak, I just don't see how you can read about their relationship and conclude that Adam simply possessed Eve, and that it was a monetary transaction.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriage predates the Bible, or at least, Western marriage predates adoption of the Bible in the West.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I recall Genesis, Adam and Eve aren't described as being married at all. It's not even clear that they have sex. I don't think it's at all obvious that Moses's audience would have taken their life as a description of marriage, especially not on Earth; rather it's a description of Heaven.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not use the Bible as proof. I gave it as an example you would recognize. Shorthand. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
BB, to be clear. I don't think that the creation story is historical. Even so, even if you believe it was, God made Eve for Adam. Did she get a vote? Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Are you seriously comparing mutually consensual adult relationships with pedophilia? Please say you aren't.
ETA: My comment was directed at Geraine, Tom snuck in there while I typed.
I see you are trying to trap me into this argument, and I'll play along.
Am I comparing them? ABSOLUTELY! But not in the sense that you are trying to get me to back into. My argument is that socially unacceptable behavior in the past has become more accepted over time, while other behavior that used to be socially acceptable is no longer so.
Do you think a 13 year old girl is mature enough to make a decision to marry an older man? I don't! People a few hundred years ago sure thought so though.
Of course, I knew some of you would go ahead and try to twist my agrument in that way. Sometimes this forum is just too predictable
I really thought my original post was clear in that I was not taking sides, but pointing out the SOCIAL aspects of the issue. The gay community IS becoming more socially acceptable, however it still has a long ways to go.
I really believe both sides have been going about it the wrong way. There is hate speech on both sides of the issue. If you don't agree with it you are a bigot, out of touch, or a crazy religious nut job. If you do agree with it you are looked down upon as a "fag" or "pillow biter" and other stupid names.
The truth is if people would just start acting like grown ups on both sides, a lot more could get done.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think a 13 year old girl is mature enough to make a decision to marry an older man? I don't! People a few hundred years ago sure thought so though.
Like hell they did. You think a child bride was going to be consulted in the matter?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My argument is that socially unacceptable behavior in the past has become more accepted over time, while other behavior that used to be socially acceptable is no longer so.
Um....In what way is that an argument against same-sex marriage?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: The phrase "Adam knew his wife, and she conceived." Could not be more obvious in it's message that Adam had sex with Eve.
Kate: Reading the conversations as they are laid out in Genesis, Eve didn't ask permission from Adam to eat the fruit, he reasoning for not eating it made no mention of her husband, when she gave the fruit to her husband he listened to her and ate.
Not exactly the behavior of a master/slave relationship.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine... okay, have your little moment to preach to us, great.
But why don't you also respond to the clear answer a number of us, including myself, gave to you?
We told you how pedophilia and homosexuality are different.
But instead you're going off of one line from someone who already knew the answer we all gave you, as though it's a representative to the whole.
Couldn't you have at least, I dunno, in even one sentence of that fairly lengthy post, even acknowledge what the rest of us said in the matter?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: KOM: The phrase "Adam knew his wife, and she conceived." Could not be more obvious in it's message that Adam had sex with Eve.
Yes, but this is after being chucked out of Eden.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: KOM: The phrase "Adam knew his wife, and she conceived." Could not be more obvious in it's message that Adam had sex with Eve.
Oh I don't know, I think "Adam had sex with Eve" as you've written may be slightly more obvious.
But then with the folks that aren't biblical literalists, I wonder how they'd take that. It was metaphorical sex!
... I wonder what that would be like.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. Have you even been paying attention?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
