Religous debates and questions [2]

I dont see how the argument that same sex couples are better for raising a child than no family at all leads onto 'soon children wont need parents at all'.
For me what is important in the upbringing of a child is that the environment is loving, stable, secure and provides opportunity for finding a place in broader society and they have the opportunity for education towards independent thought.

All of which can be provided by a same sex couple as readily as by a mixed sex couple.

Across human history we have been making arbitrary choices about child rearing forever. All human societies are a social experiment- whether that's separating your children out to perform specific very strict roles such as in ancient Sparta or enlisting all your young in the Hitler Youth as in 30's Germany or making your children say a pledge of allegiance to a flag every day.
The rise in the Christian view on marriage in the West over the last two thousand years is itself a huge social experiment with its rules dictated from a book.
I would argue we not only social engineer all the time but we have a duty to do so in order to try to find a best way.

Humans are sexual beings by nature. If there is a God then he gave us a sexual drive that is very strong and driven by a reward system.  And there is no bar on that sexual system being triggered by same sex or mixed sex relationships, God was non specific in his creation of it. It works just fine under either circumstances depending upon the sexual inclination of the individual.

You said 'a meaningful life is about love' why then should the form the love takes be of import? To advocate that Jesus speaks only of personal tolerance not social evil is to automatically cast homosexuality into the bracket of an evil, which I see no evidence to support outside the hysterics of a one and half thousand year old book.
Given the differences even say in the treatment of Blacks in America between the 1950's and present day, which few would advocate going back too, why should we assume the morality of so long ago as the Bible has any more veracity than today's?

I would also argue Jesus was not executed for his views but simply as a trouble maker against he ruling authorities of the time, not for his message but for perceived threats against the state. The notion he was martyred for his religious beliefs I think comes after his death, not during his lifetime where alongside other more prominent and effective preachers of the period, such as John or the Egyptian or Honi he was not such a big a deal.

I never said Jesus hung out with sinners to condone sin, I merely noted he did hang out with them and was accused of doing so. But its worth noting that unlike John he never publicly called on them to repent either and that may well be why John was acclaimed for his work with sinners and Jesus condoned for it.

And are the pronouncements against the cities not Paul's words speaking from his 'visions' of Jesus as opposed to anything Jesus himself said whilst alive? (I cant quite remember as Paul claims quite a lot of stuff as the word of the dead Jesus talking to him and makes quite a few rants against various cities too)

richardbrucebaxter wrote:Regarding your query; if we are going to be liberal with the definition of marriage, then realistically we should marry whatever and how many of whatever we want.

[citation needed]

I think the west has however inherited a particular version of marriage, and I don't think that marriage can or should be reinterpreted to try and fit the developmental history of every human being in an arbitrary society. People with any knowledge of the animal kingdom are just not going to respect it (exclusive homosexuality is not equivalent to indiscriminatory relations), and probably won't even get married (at least not legally). Neither is it clear why one would get married when the system has no guarantee of redefinition in 30 years time. So they can save money and maybe earn some when things get difficult? Or they can pretend to be moral or provide some guarantee of security? Or that they are so insecure that they need public recognition? Or so that they can feel loved? This is not traditional marriage. But with secular marriage, isn't marriage already whatever we want it to be? Perhaps 'the state' should no longer have a hand in marriage. Whatever they are promoting should be called something completely different (say "union", wow there is already a phrase for that; "civil union").

Could it be because people who are living together and possibly raising a family want to be able to enjoy the economic benefits that society accords to married couples?  Could it be because they want a guarantee that, if one of them is in the hospital, their spouse will be allowed to visit them?  Could it be that gay people don't want to be trapped in a "separate but equal" system that effectively treats them as second-class citizens?  Nah...

Also, expanding the "definition of marriage" to include same-sex couples has absolutely no effect on opposite-sex couples, so your question of why anyone would continue to get married is rather baffling to me.

The cultural function of marriage was to provide for children; we have to look after it. Or perhaps the state can look after our children? I am happy for someone to create their own society and experiment with it over a course of 500 years, and then come back with the results.

Having children has never been a requirement for getting married, even in years past when the social pressure for couples to have children was much higher than it is now.  I have no idea what you're getting at with the "perhaps the state can look after our children" thing.  Do you think that gay people getting married are going to scare straight couples into abandoning their children or something?

That being said I really don't think trying to protect marriage (whether the classical romantic ideal or the cross-cultural adaptive institution) in isolation of more fundamental social problems (crime against humanity) is going to achieve anything but hypocrisy. I am pretty certain of what needs to be undone to protect marriage (and humanity more generally), and it is not its liberalisation.

Please, go ahead and say what you think needs to be undone instead of just dancing around the point.  I have more respect for people who are willing to express their unpopular (even regressive) opinions instead of trying to do everything but actually state their feelings because they know that it's becoming less socially acceptable.

According to my version of the Bible, God made big handsome heterosexual men like me and sweet shapely honey babes like Amarie. Where the rest of humanity came from I don't know.

Thats not a special OZhobbit edition is it?   

And in its version of Genesis does He make kangaroos and duck billed platypus for a laugh?
And Eve nicks the apple as a garnish for the prawns on the barbi and then they cover themselves up by inventing speedos?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Thats not a special OZhobbit edition is it?   

And in its version of Genesis does He make kangaroos and duck billed platypus for a laugh?
And Eve nicks the apple as a garnish for the prawns on the barbi and then they cover themselves up by inventing speedos?

There is nothing laughable about platyputyeye and kookaburrerers, Petty - they're God's own favorites! His Chosen animals, in fact.  

As to Eve (whom we call Sheilah), she is quite welcome to any apples she can lay a finger on! Ozhobbits are still very fond of a woman's apples because of heroines like her. Why you'd want to cover them up with fig leaves is beyond me. Makes people all hung up it does, making natural things to be covered up, and natural deeds made naughty. It is amazing still to me seeing all those people in Churches looking pinched and nervous, and singing happy Lordy Lordy songs to blot out their quite natural thoughts - why would you bother? An Ozhobbit wouldn't.  

Orwell wrote:According to my version of the Bible, God made big handsome heterosexual men like me and sweet shapely honey babes like Amarie. Where the rest of humanity came from I don't know.  

  

Put that way the rest of humanity does seem rather superfluous.

That's a very interesting point you highlight there, Eldo. Marriage in this modern day and age is perhaps more a legal union than a religious union. Married people grants eachother a whole range of rights economically and legally that other people do not share. And in discussions about same sex marriage I often feel people are talking about two things at the same time, not always having the idea straight in their head which they are adressing when discussing this issue.

I don't really see what coherent and objective case could be built to argue against allowing samesex couples the same rights as everyone else when one contemplates the strict legal union of marriage.

I think if it were as straightforward as that there wouldn't be an argument.

But what happens when two people who consider themselves Christians, attend Church, believe in God and are same sex wish to be married in the eyes of God?

Its those people in particular where the lines get crossed.
To a traditionalist Christian you cant get married to someone of the same sex in the eyes of God as He disapproves of it. Its simple and straightforward.

From the point of view of the couple they know their faith is as true and strong as any heterosexual and think their God when they come before Him will see it the same way and think the traditionalists have taken a law of the time and mistaken it for an eternal law of God (like the food laws that no longer apply).

But how do you decide who is right?

halfwise wrote:Put that way the rest of humanity does seem rather superfluous.

I'm not sure, you might be right; all I know is, I now have an incredible urge to catch the next eagle to Fjordianlandia.   

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I think if it were as straightforward as that there wouldn't be an argument.

But what happens when two people who consider themselves Christians, attend Church, believe in God and are same sex wish to be married in the eyes of God?

Its those people in particular where the lines get crossed.
To a traditionalist Christian you cant get married to someone of the same sex in the eyes of God as He disapproves of it. Its simple and straightforward.

From the point of view of the couple they know their faith is as true and strong as any heterosexual and think their God when they come before Him will see it the same way and think the traditionalists have taken a law of the time and mistaken it for an eternal law of God (like the food laws that no longer apply).

But how do you decide who is right?

It seems to me that the folk who want Gay Marriage to remain illegal are the same folk who want Gay Sex to remain illegal. Anyone who says they support Gay Sex but not Gay Marriage are lying - possibly to themselves too - but still lying.

Bluebottle wrote:That's a very interesting point you highlight there, Eldo. Marriage in this modern day and age is perhaps more a legal union than a religious union. Married people grants eachother a whole range of rights economically and legally that other people do not share. And in discussions about same sex marriage I often feel people are talking about two things at the same time, not always having the idea straight in their head which they are adressing when discussing this issue.

Yeah, this has been a significant issue in the gay marriage debate in America, and I'd imagine in most other countries as well. Of course, most world religions have a marriage tradition, and many of them are different and/or have changed over the centuries. So from my perspective, the only fair way to deal with the legal side of marriage is for the government to deal with it separately from any church or other religious organization. However, in many countries with a majority religion (even if it's not given official status), lots of people want that religion's rules about marriage to dictate government policy.

I don't really see what coherent and objective case could be built to argue against allowing samesex couples the same rights as everyone else when one contemplates the strict legal union of marriage.

I don't think there really is one, to be honest. Most of the non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage boil down to "change is scary" or fall back on inaccurate stereotypes about gay people. And there's the "won't somebody please think of the children" angle, which is mostly based on stereotypes and also on some highly questionable research.

There are those in the small-government crowd (which, in the US at least, tends to be affiliated with the right-wing of the political spectrum) that says government should have nothing to do with religion and it should be left in the hands of churches and other groups. That way anybody can get married in whatever context -- even non-religious ones, if you can find a secular group willing to endorse your union -- and according to whatever rules they want (provided it doesn't violate laws against rape, incest, or pedophilia). The government wouldn't care about marriages and wouldn't keep track of them anymore. I can kind of see where people are coming from with this, but I think there social benefits to providing married couples with tax breaks. And if the government doesn't distinguish between spouses and passing flings, then you run into the aforementioned hospital problem, as well as issues with inheritance and the like, especially if one or both partner's family is anti-gay or just simply dislikes the other partner. At the end of the day, there are just so many social, legal, and financial aspects of marriage that I don't think it's really feasible to try to get rid of all of them and still have a fair and equitable system at the end.

Well, I'm not religious and more liberal in my political leanings, so I can't add much to this debate (my own views are basically, live and let live, knowone should force their views on others or dictate how other viewpoints should be changed if such viewpoints aren't directly going to effect everyone) all I will say is lurking in this subset of the forum I've been very impressed by the maturity and well balanced viewpoints on both sides, now back to the sidelines...

Just so, Malickfan!


This whole discussion has lead me on to think what Marriage is. To me it's a Contract, whether Legal or Illegal, that people enter into when they enter a relationship which involves the occasional fucking of each oher. Following that line of reasoning, the moment your sausage enters betwixt the bun of another man, the cabbage of a woman, the mouth of a consenting goat, you are indeed entering a form of marriage - however temporary the said marriage may be. Of course, I would extend this kind of marriage to include the use of the tip of a lady's tongue tickling the clitoris (pleasurably) of another lady and does not necesarily mean a strap on is actually required to complete the (temporary or other) marriage contract.

Why have a contract at all? The legalities of inheritance are going to be tricky irrespective of what contract is involved because when someone dies their friends, associates and family always swoop in like vultures and want their bit of the flesh that remains. And lawyers sit happily at their desks or in their Fjordianlandian spas awaiting the next call...

I can readily imagine it:

"Hello, Mr Bluebottle. My sister just died and I want some of her worldly goods. I, of course, wasn't married to her: though I guess I was her common law husband for a short time in the Sixties when we were quite young; that's if sexual intercourse is deemed to be a form of marriage..."

"Married? Not married? Dear Sir, we can mount a case on your behalf irrespective of trifling issues like 'Marriage Contracts' What? Secular Marriges? Religious Marriages? Common Law Marriages...? Don't fret. Ultimately they mean nothing - not when we're determined to get you a reasonable and fair cut of your (clearly beloved) Sister's worldly goods."  

 

Hey Eldo! I missed your whole post. Why so sneaky? What are you trying to hide sneaking posts in like that?    {{(Maybe I just wasn't paying proper attention... nah.. imposserous!}}}

Eldorion wrote: The government wouldn't care about marriages and wouldn't keep track of them anymore.  I can kind of see where people are coming from with this, but I think there social benefits to providing married couples with tax breaks.

No tax breaks. If you want to marry, marry. But no specail benefits for anyone. You'll be promoting income splitting next! I would oppose that. The Missus and I can't income split. We're dual income. We pay our way. If we get taxed a little more, and this tax benefits the poor a little more, then great, I say. On a dual income we're not going to starve. If marriage means anything it means you've committed your life to someone else. Getting an unfair financial advantage over single people because of it is morally wrong in my opinion, and not what cementing a relationship should be. I have an avowedly romantic view of relationships. You marry for love - and hopefuly you love sensibly! - and then you work out the finances from there. Humans are not property. Marriage should never be a property arrangement in any way. (I also look askance at prenuptial agreements. If you don't trust someone enough to want to risk your worldly goods, don't marry the sly-eyed cunt of a thing in the first place. Apologies for the French used!)

All of which you said Orwell bolsters my argument that legal marriage should ONLY be about kids. Not sure what other use tax breaks serve, and if you die without a will it's you and your fully adult partner's fault if the partner gets nothing; but if you have kids they are blameless and should get something. And 'have kids' includes adoption by homosexual partners.

There's things to be worked out regarding deathbed visitation rights etc etc if you have to have kids to be married, but all these things are child's play compared to the mess we have now, and my system is a model of clarity in comparison.

Church marriages without kids - fine, no problem. I'm only talking about legal aspects. Sex is too porous a domain for any legal basis.

halfwise wrote:All of which you said Orwell bolsters my argument that legal marriage should ONLY be about kids.  Not sure what other use tax breaks serve, and if you die without a will it's you and your fully adult partner's fault if the partner gets nothing; but if you have kids they are blameless and should get something.  And 'have kids' includes adoption by homosexual partners.

There's things to be worked out regarding deathbed visitation rights etc etc if you have to have kids to be married, but all these things are child's play compared to the mess we have now, and my system is a model of clarity in comparison.

Church marriages without kids - fine, no problem.  I'm only talking about legal aspects.  Sex is too porous a domain for any legal basis.

Why can't kids have immediate legal rights of protection - bastards or not, homosexual adoptees or not? Surely that could be easily legislated for? Kids should be protected first. Adults can make their own way. A marriage contract should have no legal weight under law.

A marriage contract should be a legal assumption of responsibility for the kids, with perhaps some tax breaks to assist with that responsibility if you are poor. Sure, kids are born with legal rights, but they also need guardians who know they have responsibilities to fulfill - hence the marriage contract.

If you have kids with no marriage contract... Umm... what then?

What about an automatic rule in law that if you are responsible for the advent of a child - including being a sperm or ovary donor - you have from then on a legal financial responsibility to that child until they are legally adults and can look after themselves?

I see your point. But the marriage contract may give you tax breaks and clarify things for such cases as adopted kids or reshuffling of partners that otherwise may be left at sea if the only legal connection is via conception and birth.

Orwell wrote:What about an automatic rule in law that if you are responsible for the advent of a child - including being a sperm or ovary donor - you have from then on a legal financial responsibility to that child until they are legally adults and can look after themselves?

That sounds like a good way to end the practice of sperm and egg donation.

Also, where would that leave the partner who was unable to biologically contribute, thus necessitating the involvement of a donor? Do they have any parental rights?

Eldorion wrote:That sounds like a good way to end the practice of sperm and egg donation.

Donation with responsibility is all I'm advocating. When the child wants to know his 'ovarian' Mother or 'sperm' Father, will he be allowed that - what I'd see as - natural right? Child Rights, anyone? (Btw I don't think donors should have rights, just the financial responsibility to assist the child if the child falls on hard times. Donors should have no rights to parenting after they have given up their biological contributions - though if push came to shove and no one else was available to look after a child bereft of other family help, then, if suitable, they might e considered as a Parent if it was eemed best for the child. Surely if you are the actual full biological Mother or Father of a Child, you would readily have Paternal/Maternal feelings for said Child? It's not apuppy dog you have given away, but a human child - your own in fact. Birth Mothers would naturally feel maternal responsibilities to the Child - they have carried that Child. She would recognise it biologically. The Child would have two genuine Mothers. A Foster Father might have a purely psychological connection, of course, which might approximate to a true sense of Paternity, I don't know. I can't imagine feeling quite the same about someone else's child as I do my own. Once you know your blood is involved, surely the true psychological bonding must follow, and powerfully?      

Eldorion wrote:Also, where would that leave the partner who was unable to biologically contribute, thus necessitating the involvement of a donor?  Do they have any parental rights?

The person who has chosen to be a full on Father or Mother - whether sperm or ovarian donor or not - should have full parental entitlements and rights in my opinion, so long as the child's rights take precedence.

Orwell wrote:
Why have a contract at all? The legalities of inheritance are going to be tricky irrespective of what contract is involved because when someone dies their friends, associates and family always swoop in like vultures and want their bit of the flesh that remains. And lawyers sit happily at their desks or in their Fjordianlandian spas awaiting the next call...

I can readily imagine it:

"Hello, Mr Bluebottle. My sister just died and I want some of her worldly goods. I, of course, wasn't married to her: though I guess I was her common law husband for a short time in the Sixties when we were quite young; that's if sexual intercourse is deemed to be a form of marriage..."

"Married? Not married? Dear Sir, we can mount a case on your behalf irrespective of trifling issues like 'Marriage Contracts' What? Secular Marriges? Religious Marriages? Common Law Marriages...? Don't fret. Ultimately they mean nothing - not when we're determined to get you a reasonable and fair cut of your (clearly beloved) Sister's worldly goods."  

 

Well.  

Firstly, a marriage betwen siblings is of course illegal and the marriage would therefore be invalid. So no inheritance could be claimed on the basis of it. Secondly the person could of course have the right to some inheritance as a sibling if the person in question didn't have any life heirs. That would primarily be children, and childrens cildren. And, secondarily, parents.

And if the person actually was legally married the husband/wife would be be entitled to some inheritance through the marriage.

Here to help.

Now where do I send my bill.