The Purpose of Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SextusEmpiricus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
So consent is required for bestiality–something which involves only pleasure–but consent is never appealed to when killing the animal–a loss of life!–is required.
Click to expand...
Hi PR…

Personally, I never have sex with anything I’m likely to eat. As I think this would apply to most people, the point is moot.
 
PRmerger said:
Actually, some humans do not have 46 chromosomes. They have an extra one.
Click to expand...
Yes, you’re right, some do, such as people with the various trisomy disorders (ex:down syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, XYY syndrome).
 
Bradski said:
Hi PR…

Personally, I never have sex with anything I’m likely to eat. As I think this would apply to most people, the point is moot.
Click to expand...
I can proudly say the same thing!!

Who would have thought we could have so much in common, you and I! 😛
 
Bradski said:
Hi PR…

Personally, I never have sex with anything I’m likely to eat. As I think this would apply to most people, the point is moot.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. There are all kinds of mammals that people don’t normally eat, but which might be subjected to bestiality – horses and dogs come to mind.

Besides, animals are property. As such, we don’t need to obtain their consent on anything.
 
stewstew03 said:
Not exactly. There are all kinds of mammals that people don’t normally eat, but which might be subjected to bestiality – horses and dogs come to mind.
Click to expand...
Whether there are or not, the point still stands. An animal can’t give consent for what happens to it, so it cannot enter into a contract (I can’t believe I just had to write that out).

And anyway, you’re sneaking in a little cultural bias there. Horse and dog are very commonly eaten. Horse is like beef, if a little gamey on times and dog is like pork (don’t forget to remove the collar if you’re braising it).
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Well, no, that’s an inference that you’ve made, but not something that I’ve implied. Not that I expect you to recall the previous threads in which we both participated, but I don’t express value independent of a valuer(1, 2). In the inference that you are making to have personal meaning to me I’d need to know “more valuable to who?” and “more valuable in what way?”

But no need to fill in those gaps. It’s a comparative proposition to which I only have apathy. Outside the animals that live with me most of the animals I encounter on any given day are recently deceased, such as the armadillo I passed on my drive into work this AM or the carcasses that I routinely remove after the cat has collected them at the front door. Not really a state that inspires thoughts on what their pairing behaviour might have been like.
Click to expand...
Was everything on this planet worthless before human beings existed?
 
inocente said:
*cult - a system of religious belief, esp. one not recognized as an established religion, or the people who worship according to such a system of belief: People considered him a brilliant cult leader and con man.

A cult is also something that is very popular with some people, or a particular set of beliefs or behavior: a cult movie, the cult of celebrity - dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/cult?q=cult*

So, exactly the same way you distinguish your faith from a cult. Checks and balances, checks and balances.

Not to put too fine a point on it, just like a secular democracy. 🙂
Click to expand...
So it depends solely on the opinion of the majority?
 
inocente said:
Yes, civil means civil, secular democracy means secular democracy.
Click to expand...
Do you mean that the purpose of civil marriage depends on solely on the opinion of the majority?

What is the purpose of a Christian marriage?
 
tonyrey said:
Was everything on this planet worthless before human beings existed?
Click to expand...
At that time the non-existent humans don’t seem to have been making value judgements. So I cant say humans found things to be of worth or worthless. There may have been other life forms with minds capable of value judgement. Thay may have found things to be of worth or worthless. This stance is further elaborated in the threads i referenced.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
At that time the non-existent humans don’t seem to have been making value judgements. So I cant say humans found things to be of worth or worthless. There may have been other life forms with minds capable of value judgement. Thay may have found things to be of worth or worthless. This stance is further elaborated in the threads i referenced.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
Click to expand...
So you believe life forms with minds incapable of value judgement are worthless?
 
tonyrey said:
So you believe life forms with minds incapable of value judgement are worthless?
Click to expand...
You are describing a different relationship than the one I did. In the statements I made “worth” was an attribute of the relationship between a life form with a mind doing an evaluation and an object. You’ve shifted the position of the life form into object being evaluated. The one doing the evaluation isn’t clear to me in what you are describing.

But rather than hash this out, I refer you to the previously referenced thread that contains the series of response that I gave when you asked me the same question back in November of 2011.(here). Our interaction ends at #269 so there’s not much to read.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
You are describing a different relationship than the one I did. In the statements I made “worth” was an attribute of the relationship between a life form with a mind doing an evaluation and an object. You’ve shifted the position of the life form into object being evaluated. The one doing the evaluation isn’t clear to me in what you are describing.

But rather than hash this out, I refer you to the previously referenced thread that contains the series of response that I gave when you asked me the same question back in November of 2011.(here). Our interaction ends at #269 so there’s not much to read.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t evaluation imply **objective **differences in the objects being evaluated?
 
tonyrey said:
Do you mean that the purpose of civil marriage depends on solely on the opinion of the majority?

What is the purpose of a Christian marriage?
Click to expand...
As has been said before, it’s an unsubstantiated assumption that there is one purpose, and is unlikely given that we know people get married for various different reasons.
 
tonyrey said:
Doesn’t evaluation imply **objective **differences in the objects being evaluated?
Click to expand...
Nope, If you specified a specific type of value then such an implication might be present. That’s close to where we left off when we had this conversation previously.
 
inocente said:
As has been said before, it’s an unsubstantiated assumption that there is one purpose, and is unlikely given that we know people get married for various different reasons.
Click to expand...
It’s also an unsubstantiated assumption that there is not one fundamental purpose… especially for those who believe in God.
 
tonyrey said:
It’s also an unsubstantiated assumption that there is not one fundamental purpose… especially for those who believe in God.
Click to expand...
In your opinion, is that one purpose procreation, unity or something else?
 
tonyrey said:
All values presuppose the value of existence - without which values would be figments of the imagination. “Nothing shall come from nothing.” - King Lear
Click to expand...
Without knowing which meaning of “value” is being invoked here this isn’t something on which I can comment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top