Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Marriage: mono, bigamy, and polgamy, etc.

Marriage

  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#101 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 22 August 2003 - 03:14 PM

S'okay, Lil.

The only point I am trying to make is that while the origination of it might be religious law, sin, taboo, etc., that doesn't mean that there isn't a good reason that lies behind it.

I certainly think the laws should be reexamined and open debate upon it, such as we're doing now, should occur. However, I don't think the law should be rejected out of hand.

#102 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 22 August 2003 - 03:54 PM

Huh?

I don't see your logic Lil.  Let's step through this.

Quote

Because it's a judgment that they have no call to have it.

Okay, that's not completely true.  It's not false, but the only reason it's a judgement is because the standard definition is being challenged.

Quote

And underlying the judgment is the assumption that what they are doing is wrong.

Now this is simply your opinion and it's irrelevant to boot.  Yes, there are people who don't want to see it because they think it's wrong to be gay.  Certainly.  However, there are also arguments against gay marriage that can be made where the "wrongness" of being gay have no bearing.  I made such an argument about utility and state interest.  I have yet to hear anyone challenge them on any basis other than:

"You must not like gays, so therefore any argument that you come up with is wrong."

And that's not logical.  With a bias against religion, it's easy to tar any argument you want with that brush and have it stick, because many people are willing to believe anything bad about religion these days.  Nevertheless, making that argument is ignoring the challenge and appealing to people's sense of ignorance rather than their critical faculties.

Moving on....

Quote

And I will ask this again. Why is it anybody's business but the couple involved?

Well, for one thing, you appear to believe that it's the government's business, because you want the government to take positive action to recognize that arrangement.  If it was the couple's interest solely, then we wouldn't have this issue.  They would just either declare themselves married or find a religion that would do it, if they are religiously inclined.  

I'm not interested in having anyone interfere with the actions of gay people amongst themselves and I'd be happy to support any repeal of "bedroom laws" that outlaw that choice. This is not us sticking our nose into their bedroom, it is the gay marriage lobby sticking theirs into the public forum.  

Quote

Can you prove to me that the Ten Commandments was the FIRST place in which a rule against murder was codified???

An interesting question.  And I'd turn it around on you again.  Can we prove that marriage and the concept of a breeding pair as it is today came from Judeo-Chrsitianity FIRST and exclusively?  I can tell you for a fact that older societies than Christianity set up marriage rules that may or may not have outlawed single sexed marriage, per se, but none of them failed to recognize the central point of the relationship which was care and voluntary control of breeding.  

The Celts had as many as ten degrees of relationship, even one based on rape!  Romans certainly had civil marriage, as well as the Greeks and Egyptians.  Although you might make marriage a religious ceremony in any of those societies, the very fact that marriage existed in a recognizable form in most religions and societies means not that it is religious, but rather that it was a necessary concept for it to be absorbed into any successful religion.  

The underlying utility and genesis of marriage has nothing to do with religion or religious preference.  It exists as a useful institution on it's own two feet.  Therefore, you can make arguments about alterations to marriage that have nothing to do with religion at all.  Alternately, you CANNOT simply choose to say that you don't believe in this or that religion and therefore you can make marriage into anything you want.  It doesn't work that way because marriage isn't part of religion so religious arguments about religion only have bearing on religious aspects of it, but no bearing whatsoever on state interest and utility of the civil component.

So, to sum up really briefly.  

I'm not talking about religion here, so why are you?
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#103 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 22 August 2003 - 05:58 PM

Cait said:

Does anyone have any good authorities on which came first; The 10 Commandments or the Code of Hammurabi?
Although the oldest known Biblical writings are from only a few centuries BCE, the Jews' impetus to write everything down and make it "holy" to ensure preservation was probably the Babylonian conquest in 576 BCE, when it first appeared that they might "lose their past". So the commandments were probably first written down soon after that, in which case we just don't have the very first copies ever written.

The commandments, prior to that, were only oral tradition. If they were merely tacked onto the story of their trip out of Egypt, they could have originated almost any time before the first time they were written, even BEFORE they left Egpyt or even arrived in it, and then simply had the story of their origin altered to be a part of the story of their gaining freedom. (That would be consistent with ancient Babylo-Judaic culture's tendency for divine insight or great wisdom to come after a narrow escape from great danger or disaster; for example, that's what the epic of Gilgamesh is about, and the very FIRST laws God ever gave the Jews in the Bible were given after the Ark was reopened on dry gound.) Thus, it would be possible for the commandments to predate Hammurabi's laws, or not, and we'd never know.

However, if we figure the commandments really do come from the time of the Jews' trip from Egpyt to Israel, then their origin can be dated fairly well according to the life of the Pharoah, since those dates are well established. The Pharoah they fled from is not named in the Bible, but several avenues of evidence indicate that it was Ramses II (which would make him the only Biblical character whose face you can look at if you go to the right museum), who lived from 1304 to 1237 BCE. He was alive and ruling when they began a journey that took 40 years, so that would extend the latest possible date for the events at Mount Sinai to 1197, but it obviously doesn't back up the earliest possible date before he was born.

Hammurabi's laws must have been written during his life, which began in 1792 and ended in 1750. That means they must predate the events at Mount Sinai by somewhere from 446 to 595 years.

Now I just wish I knew when the Jews are supposed to have gone to Egypt in the first place; it's possible that they were still near the Babylonians (having originated themselves AS Babylonians), and knew of Hammurabi's laws, before going even going TO Egypt, nevermind coming back FROM it.

Edited by Delvo, 22 August 2003 - 07:25 PM.


#104 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 22 August 2003 - 07:09 PM

Quote

Dear Sid, et al;

I am going to back off here for a few days. It's more the heat and my usual set of health problem, then it is the chemo. I just don't want anyone thinking that I've succumb to the arguments. Not yet at any rate.

Sparky::

Don't worry, I wouldn't take silence as meaning agreement.  I drop out of topics all the time because I just get really tired dealing with them or something interests me more.  I certainly wouldn't want someone to think that I was running up the white flag because of that.  I may not have as many posts as some, but I take a lot of time writing each one, and that gets draining after awhile.  However,  just because you get tired out, doesn't mean you were wrong.  That goes for you as much as for me.  

So, take your time and recover.  I don't think the arguments are going to go away any time soon, so there's no rush.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#105 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 22 August 2003 - 07:37 PM

Delvo, on Aug 22 2003, 04:58 PM, said:

Now I just wish I knew when the Jews are supposed to have gone to Egypt in the first place; it's possible that they were still near the Babylonians (having originated themselves AS Babylonians), and knew of Hammurabi's laws, before going even going TO Egypt, nevermind coming back FROM it.
Oyf, where's my mind today...

Although I still don't know when the Jews moved to Egypt, I do know that the time when Abram and his gang migrated away from Ur, thus beginning a whole new group separate from the Babylonians, is described as "around 1800". That's 8 years before Hammurabi's birth. Depending on how old Hammurabi was when he wrote the laws and how precise that "about" is for the Jews' separation from the rest of the Babylonians, it might be possible that they were still Babylonians in Ur under the rule of Hammurabi's laws, very briefly. But that's a bit of a stretch. However, what that does tell us for certain is that they didn't go to Egypt until well after the laws were written down in Babylon, whose territory put them right next door to the Jews, since generations passed after Abraham before Jacob. Thus, it makes sense to figure that by the time the whole Egypt thing happened, they knew about their neighbors' written laws.

Edited by Delvo, 22 August 2003 - 08:50 PM.


#106 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,316 posts

Posted 22 August 2003 - 07:52 PM

May I also suggest that their OTHER neighbors (the Egyptians) had written laws as well?  Moses wrote the law supposedly AFTER the exodus - the Egyptian negative confessions have been suggested as a source for the ten commandments...  (Or am I just jumping in all in the middle of stuff? :ermm:

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#107 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 22 August 2003 - 07:57 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 22 2003, 01:11 PM, said:

Can you prove to me that the Ten Commandments was the FIRST place in which a rule against murder was codified???

I don't think so.
I can go farther than that and DISprove it. Actually, it's not even the first in the Bible.

The punishment of Cain for Abel's death could be interpretted as implying that there was a rule against it, even though the Bible's description doesn't make it clear that Abel's death was a murder rather than an accident, and even though nobody had told Cain not to do that in the first place. Plus, God holding Cain responsible for a misdeed when nobody is specified to have first told him not to do that, plus Cain's attempt to not be held accountable for it, plus the fact that Cain was apparently at risk of being held responsible for it by the other people he might meet later, can easily be seen as meaning that the injunction against murder is such an obvious, natural law that all people have always known it, including before the commandments were given.

Also, for a less-interpretation-dependent pre-Commandment commandment against murder, consider Genesis 9:5-6, when the flood is just recently past and God starts giving Noah and the family some pre-Commandment commandments...

Quote

For your life-blood I will demand satisfaction; from every animal I will require it, and from a man also I will require satisfaction for the death of his fellow-man. He that sheds the blood of a man, for that man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

Edited by Delvo, 22 August 2003 - 07:59 PM.


#108 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 22 August 2003 - 10:03 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 22 2003, 10:43 AM, said:

Uncle Sid, on Aug 21 2003, 07:12 PM, said:

That's just it, though.  How is there a stigma enforced by not giving something to a group that has no call to have such a thing?
Because it's a judgment that they have no call to have it.

And underlying the judgment is the assumption that what they are doing is wrong.

And the assumption that what they are doing is wrong stems largely from a bunch of paradigms flowing from religion.

Which equates to a legal question being decided based on religion.

It's wrong on many levels Uncle Sid.

And I will ask this again.  Why is it anybody's business but the couple involved?

Lil (holding the line until Sparky returns;))
Well said, Lil!!  ;)
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#109 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 August 2003 - 10:05 PM

Why thank you Rhea!

:D
Posted Image

#110 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,224 posts

Posted 26 August 2003 - 02:28 PM

Thanks for keeping around you guys, I don't have enough hours in a day ;) and I'll probably waste a good number of the free ones I have today here ;) :D

Sorry, Uncle Sid, I haven't kept track of who said what, and some people were talking about religion and/or the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. There are very few people completely seperating religion/homosexuality/marriage and law, on both sides. Though I'm still curious as to answers to my comments/questions ;)

I was going to ask (before life side-tracked me) if a homosexual couple were planning on/already had kid(s), should they get married under the law. Seems you answered that while I was away ;)
*goes and searches for relevant quote(s)*
ARG! *kicks the computer* Thats better  :blush:

Quote

Do homosexuals expect that somehow they should be able to now suddenly be able produce children through intercourse between themselves? Because unless they do, telling them that they aren't breeders is hardly a stigma, it's simply a fact. We have laws and regulations that cover the situations of adopted children or those concieved with the aid of a third party. In many instances, those situations do not require marriage for guardianship to be granted. Similarly, marriage is simply the situation for those who come into children the old fashioned way.

Can dual adoption/guardianship be given to two people of the same gender? I really, honestly, don't know. Would people with "dual" guardianship be given the rights of marriage partners? This is one of the main hitching points for me.
Marriage isn't just about breeding, though, married couples gets a set of rights and privleges (and responsiblities) that has little to do with breeding.
Also, denying marriage to gay people "illegitimizes" any children they have, or had, whether the natural way, or with reproductive technologies.
There is still a stigma, no matter what people say. about people who have kids outside of marriage. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.
Just like their is a stigma on young unmarried mothers (though most people I know don't carry it on to the children).
It is in the states interest not to have these people marginalized, I would think. So either they should come up with *something* to legitimize homosexual relations and, albeit less likely, their children.

Heck, on a side note, I might even say they should nearly be treated/seen as infertile/sterile couples, and possible, depending on the local laws, get help with overcoming that if they want to :p :D  ;)


To stray away from state interests (which I may or may have already done unconsiously  :upside: ) ....

Quote

I'm not interested in having anyone interfere with the actions of gay people amongst themselves and I'd be happy to support any repeal of "bedroom laws" that outlaw that choice. This is not us sticking our nose into their bedroom, it is the gay marriage lobby sticking theirs into the public forum.

So the lobby(ies) against gay marriage should be the only ones allowed to stick their nose into the public forum? Keep your gayness to the house/bedroom? While straight people are allowed to show off their straigtness in public?? If some gays see, even in just their eyes, rights being denied them, they have every right to lobby government, just as other groups have rights to lobby back.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#111 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 26 August 2003 - 09:00 PM

^LOL about the time wastage.

As far as I'm concerned, copulation and conception do not parents make.  :suspect:  :whatsthat:  I know some gay couples who are wonderful parents and plenty of heterosexual couples who are sh*tt* ones. Working in preschool special ed, I also see an incredible number of wonderful adoptive parents.

As far as I'm concerned, however they come by them, the people who sit up in the night with a sick child, fix booboos, rock their babies and sing them lullabies, and stick around to raise them ARE their parents, whether they bore them or not.

Gay couples are just as capable of being loving parents as heterosexual couples.  Unless, of course, you assume that any gay relationship can't be founded on love, which seems just incredibly bigoted to me.

And I see foster parents who are far better to their foster kids than the idiots who bore them. And believe me, I've seen plenty of the idiots too.

And full circle we come - I fail to see why the religious views of anyone, however strongly held, should dictate relationships and legal ties to the country as a whole.

Edited by Rhea, 26 August 2003 - 09:03 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#112 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 27 August 2003 - 02:54 AM

Quote

As far as I'm concerned, copulation and conception do not parents make.

Oh, yes, I have a strong opinion on that. Screwing and making babies doesn't "make" you a Man or a Woman, in the sense of "I'm such a man, I'm so cool." A lot of guys can impregnate a lot of women. A lot of women can pop out the babies. It takes actually staying in a relationship and raising the babies to be *parents*. I don't care all that much if the parents are male/female, male/male, or female/female. Whatever. I care about competence in parenting that goes beyond "Let's screw"... "I'm pregnant"... "Yeah, and I'm leaving."

Go on all you like about the wrongness of gay parents; there are plenty of utterly unfit heterosexuals.
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Marriage

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users