Marriage a contract?
 

:missingteeth:[quote=garo;133951]Given that our planet is suffering from massive over-population shouldn't we be promoting same-sex marriage as a means of population control? Eh, Ernst? :razz:

More seriously, from a global perspective, I really really don't think that we need to worry about preserving procreation within the sanctity of marriage for at least a couple of hundred years. So all this stuff about marriage is meant for procreation and the survival of our species is hogwash and utterly irrelevant to our present situation as a species. So give us a better argument than that.[/quote]

Actually I don't think that is true. In fact the environmental status of the planet is better now than it was 25 years ago. That doesn't mean however that we can now sit back on our heels and stop making improvements. One so called improvement "bio fuels" has already caused a backlash resulting in higher food prices and starvation in poorer regions of the planet.

For the record Marriage isn't even a right for heterosexuals it is rather an obligation to society in general. That also puts obligations on society to protect it. So we establish ways of making it recognized, that in itself makes the concept of same sex marriage hogwash.

One thing we have to get away from is the concept that marriage is a sort of business contract. It is a covenant relationship which ideally was never meant to be broken. Premarital contracts not withstanding, which are business types of contracts. If marriage today were what it is supposed to be no Laws would even be required. Some laws designed to protect marriage deal with making it punishable by fine or suit for example to alienate affection. Why do we even need such laws? If you think we don't you probably subscribe to the idea that humans are basiclly good. I for one don't.

[QUOTE=Nelson;133837]If truth is not part of a debate then you can never come to a valid conclusion. Truth and validity go hand in hand, Hmmm, that would be a parallel to a happily married couple. One can be happy or content and at the same time not be happy about some given situation.

If I were homosexual I can't see why I would want marriage since heterosexuals don't seem to value it very much.

nelson[/QUOTE]

More idiotic comments.

[b]truth[/b] applies to [b]facts[/b], not opinions. The debate about
the definition of marriage is based on opinions. [b]thruth[/b] does not
apply.

[quote=R.D. Silverman;133969]More idiotic comments.

[B]truth[/B] applies to [B]facts[/B], not opinions. The debate about
the definition of marriage is based on opinions. [B]thruth[/B] does not
apply.[/quote]

n.C.
wnp

[quote=Nelson;133967]For the record Marriage isn't even a right for heterosexuals it is rather an obligation to society in general. That also puts obligations on society to protect it. So we establish ways of making it recognized, that in itself makes the concept of same sex marriage hogwash.

One thing we have to get away from is the concept that marriage is a sort of business contract. It is a covenant relationship which ideally was never meant to be broken. Premarital contracts not withstanding, which are business types of contracts. If marriage today were what it is supposed to be no Laws would even be required. Some laws designed to protect marriage deal with making it punishable by fine or suit for example to alienate affection. Why do we even need such laws? If you think we don't you probably subscribe to the idea that humans are basiclly good. I for one don't.[/quote]
I've removed the remarks about the environment and bio fuels from the above quote because they are irrelevant and also show a complete lack of understanding of garo's posting which you quoted. My (very limited) understanding of the rest of your posting is that you regard marriage as something which is a mutual obligation between the partners and the rest of society and which should not need to be regulated by law at all (have I got that right?). Could you please explain why you think that this makes the concept of same sex marriage "hogwash" whereas opposite sex marriage needs to be protected?

Brian,

For the record Marriage isn't even a right for heterosexuals it is rather an obligation ... that's what makes any other marriage forms "hogwash" It further implies that if Marriage is not a "right" for heterosexuals neither is it a "right" for same sex couples? Court decisions to the contrary are for that reason incorrect. This thread however is not about whether it is a "right" but whether it should be allowed. Allowing it presumes that it is a "right" which is the mistaken view that I am trying to correct.

The environmental remark was (a refutation of/rebuttal to) Garo's argument for allowing same sex marriage as a means for limiting/reducing population growth. His reasons are neither adequate nor sustainable.

[B][U]If[/U][/B] their were no weaknesses of Human nature to distract others from and be distracted from obligations then no governments or law making bodies would even be necessary regarding marriage or any other human endeavour/activity. Everyone would have the same respect for others that he had for himself.

Marriage is a covenant (covenant is much stronger than confederation or union like the european union, it is more like the Bundesrepublik of Germany.) It is also where the common words in marriage vows comes from,"'til death do us Part."

Covenant continues until one or the other dies at which time all property becomes that of the survivor or son usually the eldest who then had the responsibilty for the care of the surviving wife/wives. If no issue/son existed the wife then married a close relative of her husband to produce an heir. The story of Ruth is a prime example of how that worked.

In earlier times covenant was sealed/established using some form of animal sacrifice meaning it was sealed in blood(life) not only for marriages but also between men who may have been married to women and caried beyond death to the deceased's descendants. Today we substitute symbols for those elements but historically it was a grand festival like a modern day Barbeque.

Could you imagine Holland ever separating into a number of different countries? And the resulting Chaos? I imagine it would be considerably worse than it was with Czechoslovakia but that was pretty much artificial any way. It also didn't directly affect the family as a unit but required some hard decisions about which country should receive the allegiance of some families which I know personally. These are only rhetorical questions to aid in understanding and do not require answers. It is however what happens in cases of divorce. The divorce and adultery aspect is what is repugnant to me. "That is not how it was from the beginning..." implying it is also not how it should be now.

[B]Because of our hard headedness it may however have to be allowed in order to protect people from abuses that shouldn't/wouldn't happen, Just as divorce was allowed to protect a woman from abuse. It however in no way made nor makes it right. [/B]

I hope you might begin to see a connection between divorce resulting in trauma for children bringing them to to the conclusion that they are worthless and consequently try to reninforce their value buy receiving it from someone of the same sex because their own isn't sufficient for them.
I'm afraid this is getting way off topic. I just feel so strongly and hurt deep inside about it I have difficulty deciding where to draw the line. I'm afraid it's to the point that it should be discussed via PM although it would not benefit others. .
I highlighted what I believe actually pertains to the thread although it of itself is not sufficient.
Forgive me Brian if your questions are not answered. I would gladly answer a PM.

nelson

Nelson,

Did it ever occur to you that not everybody thinks the bible is supreme law ?
Did it ever occur to you that still less people think the bible should be taken literally ?
Did you ever study the bible with a critical eye ?

Your example of the book of Ruth is typical : it is an apocryphe, in other words a fake, it was not written at the time of the judges, but seven centuries later...

The mores and rules described in the Bible are appalling (sending a soldier to a sure death to take his wife as a concubine, selling ones daughter as a slave, death penalty for adulterous relations, for working on sabbath, for wearing clothes made of more than one type of fiber...)

There is no mention of a marriage between Adam and Eve : does it mean they should have been stoned ? By whom ? Their children ?

You claim that your interpretation of the bible is the everlasting truth, that does not make it so for everyone. It is purely thinking in circles : “it is true because it is written in the bible and the bible is true because I believe it to be the word of god which is true because it is written in the bible and...

Jacob

Jacob,

How old wasd the earth when god created it?
How old was the universe when he created it?
How old were Adam and Eve when he created them?

nelson

Nelson,

You are correct that you have not answered what I asked. If sending me a PM somehow focusses your mind and stops you from discussing irrelevancy at great length, then by all means do so and I will then post your message here on the public forum so that everyone can discuss it.

But let's try again. It's a simple question and you should be able to answer it in a few to-the-point sentences, perhaps even just one sentence. What is the difference between an opposite-sex committed, loving and life-long relationship and a same-sex committed, loving and life-long relationship that means that marriage should be available to the first kind and not to the second?

Brian.

[QUOTE=Nelson;134072]Jacob,

How old wasd the earth when god created it?
How old was the universe when he created it?
How old were Adam and Eve when he created them?

nelson[/QUOTE]

Assuming facts not in evidence.
Assuming facts contrary to other evidence.
Case dismissed.
Nitwit.

[quote=R.D. Silverman;134074]
Nitwit.[/quote]

Tut-tut "argumentum ad baculum" will get you nowhere.
Your welcome to answer the questions yourself since you're so clever.

Perhaps the questions are too hard. So I'll give you an easier one.

How old is the twenty first century now? Years and months will be precise enough. Just to verify that you can count. That question isn't relative to this thread like the other three. It is only a reference. And more relevant by far than Jacob's questions. They must have a correct answer that is verifiable and based on what is really true. You see I didn't bring in the names of Adam and Eve but Jacob did. If he assumes they never existed then he has no legitimate claim to using them.

I did mistype "was" in the first question though. That may be a fatal error.

Appearance is only one form of evidence but doesn't tell the whole. You may try but more as an exercise in thinking. How would the universe appear if you were perpetually orbiting a Black Hole (or any other not yet defined entity) at the event horizon? falling into it? escaping from it? would that have any affect on its appearance of age and the red shift in particular.

You yourself said the debate wasn't about truth. You can't have it both ways. A debate that is not about truth partial or whole isn't a debate. Can we arrive at a basis for allowing same sex marriage. I have already given a basis for making it legitmate irregardless of whether it is right or wrong. I'm only saying it can't be based on a "right." It can however be based on truth however uncomfortable that truth may be. My reason for allowing it is based on both truth and precedent.

I haven't seen any posts in this whole thread that do that. Yours included. Are there truth and precedent from your view that can allow it?

There may be vast knowledge which you possess and can bring to the discussion in some areas and I will have knowledge in other areas and still our knowledge together will never amount to a hill of beans nor be the whole of truth. Does Mathematics carry some grain of truth that has a bearing on whether Gay marriage should be allowed? If not it would have to be excluded. If so we need it right now. If mathematics has no bearing then all the knowledge of mathematics that you and I possess together would also be excluded and since you would have more knowledge of mathematics than I then I you would come up short in the knowledge department. You could bring the deficit back into balance if the knowledge you have pertaining to the discussion were more vast than mine in some other area. So why don't you post that instead of attacking me. When you resort to attacking me you only demonstrate that you have no further knowledge pertaining to the debate.

nelson

[quote=Nelson;134086]...Can we arrive at a basis for allowing same sex marriage. I have already given a basis for making it legitmate irregardless of whether it is right or wrong. I'm only saying it can't be based on a "right." It can however be based on truth however uncomfortable that truth may be. My reason for allowing it is based on both truth and precedent. ...[/quote]
Nelson, are you saying that you are in favour of allowing same sex marriage? Not as a right but as a mark of truth? For example the truth that some people fall in love with a same sex partner and spend the rest of their life with that partner in a loving relationship?

If that is what you are saying then I for one have no disagreement with you.