The Purpose of Marriage

[Tyrion]

The article you linked says he broke civil rights law. Would it not be bullying if white skinned people refused to sell food to black men? Would it not be bullying if Protestants refused to let Catholics buy houses? Why then is it not bullying to refuse to sell cake to homosexuals?

The baker is a bully, the thing civil rights is there to stop.

I am constantly amazed that some people wish to impose their “morality” on others and consider this a proper way to go, but when other people use the legal means (the ballot) to fight against that discrimination they scream bloody murder and persecution. Reminds me of the famous line from Animal Farm: “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

 

[Ion]

The article you linked says he broke civil rights law. Would it not be bullying if white skinned people refused to sell food to black men? Would it not be bullying if Protestants refused to let Catholics buy houses? Why then is it not bullying to refuse to sell cake to homosexuals?

The baker is a bully, the thing civil rights is there to stop.

It is not a bully; the cake is not ordinary, but an very special one with symbols that mock the bakers beliefs. The accusers somehow “forgot” this part.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…]but I do not see how the US can deny polyamorous marriages, or even adult incest marriages, IF marriage is defined as a constitutional right/privilege.

Polygamy is limited because of the degradation of women.

That seems like a weak standard – after all, hasn’t it been argued that “traditional” marriages degrade women?

In some countries (primarily in Africa and Middle East) polygamy is recognized under civil law. It occurs in the USA but the groups that engage in it don’t seem to be interested in changing laws to get their marriages recognized. For example, the Jeff Warrens (I may have that name wrong) seem to want to keep themselves separated from the rest of society and don’t seem to care much about changing or conforming to the laws of the outsiders (interesting note: only certain males in their group are allowed to “seed” the women, so the person being impregnated isn’t necessarily one’s wife nor is one necessarily allowed to procreate with one’s wife).

At any rate, I’d be interested in see some of the arguments for or against polygamy (while at the same time being apathetic as to whether consenting adults decide to practice it privately). But I’ve not yet come across any one that has gone past an imbalance of males and females or any one that has proposed any legal changes with respect to polygamy since Reynolds v. United States (1878)*.

*] - Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.
The Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not meet that standard. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law, upon which United States law was based.

 

[Ion]

In some countries (primarily in Africa and Middle East) polygamy is recognized under civil law. It occurs in the USA but the groups that engage in it don’t seem to be interested in changing laws to get their marriages recognized. For example, the Jeff Warrens (I may have that name wrong) seem to want to keep themselves separated from the rest of society and don’t seem to care much about changing or conforming to the laws of the outsiders (interesting note: only certain males in their group are allowed to “seed” the women, so the person being impregnated isn’t necessarily one’s wife nor is one necessarily allowed to procreate with one’s wife).

At any rate, I’d be interested in see some of the arguments for or against polygamy (while at the same time being apathetic as to whether consenting adults decide to practice it privately). But I’ve not yet come across any one that has gone past an imbalance of males and females or any one that has proposed any legal changes with respect to polygamy since Reynolds v. United States (1878)*.

*] - Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.
The Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not meet that standard. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law, upon which United States law was based.

Polygamy is degrading for women because they theoretically marry one man, but in fact with a plethora of other womens and kids she doesn’t even know. This gives space for all sort of maneuvers for both of them regarding rights and responsibilities; this would be a huge market for lawyers, in fact might be too big for any legal system that regards the equality of man and woman.

 

[tonyrey]

No, if you read his letters elsewhere he talks of love and commitment.

Although avoiding temptation does appear to be important to him: “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. …] If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.”

In my post, straight after the sentence you quoted, I said "Please give chapter and verse where Jesus teaches that marriage is about “love and the pursuit of happiness”.

Where is it?

You have contradicted yourself twice!

Do you believe St Paul meant that the **sole **

*purpose of marriage is to avoid temptation?
No, if you read his letters elsewhere he talks of love and commitment.

Yet you have also stated:

The purpose of marriage has continually changed throughout history.

Hasn’t marriage **always **been about love and commitment?

In my post, straight after the sentence you quoted, I said "Please give chapter and verse where Jesus teaches that marriage is about “love and the pursuit of happiness”.

Where is it?

Why is it necessary to cite Jesus if you believe St Paul’s teaching that marriage is about love and commitment?

Do you believe St Paul was misrepresenting Jesus or discovered by himself a fact Jesus overlooked?

Did Jesus or St Paul teach or imply that the purpose of marriage is not to make the husband and wife - and their children - happy?

Do you believe the purpose of marriage is** not **to make the husband and wife - and their children - happy?

 

[mek42]

What harm is there for an infertile incestuous arrangement?

The same procreative risk that makes an infertile non-incestuous marriage valid as per Canon Law. Further, incest implies an imbalance of power between the parties akin to why most universities prohibit professor - student sexual relations. Thus consent comes into question.

 

[stewstew03]

The same procreative risk that makes an infertile non-incestuous marriage valid as per Canon Law. Further, incest implies an imbalance of power between the parties akin to why most universities prohibit professor - student sexual relations. Thus consent comes into question.

Let’s say a brother and sister, separated at birth, accidentally marry later in life; then discover they are siblings. To complicate matters, this coyple has three healthy childten as a result of their marriage. Now, if you’re in favor of two men marrying for love/personal fulfillment, why would you be against these siblings marrying or remaining married?

 

[mek42]

Let’s say a brother and sister, separated at birth, accidentally marry later in life; then discover they are siblings. To complicate matters, this coyple has three healthy childten as a result of their marriage. Now, if you’re in favor of two men marrying for love/personal fulfillment, why would you be against these siblings marrying or remaining married?

In this limited case, what is done is done. They are essentially strangers to each other. I don’t think they should be sundered. They should be advised of possible genetic screening results for possible future children and counseling should be made available. If they had a Catholic wedding, said marriage may even remain valid, since the defects was not known at the time the Sacrement was given in good faith.

This situation, though, is very far from the norm of incest. Far enough removed to arguably be incest by letter of law, not the spirit of the law.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Could you provide an answer that is less abstract? I understand you are saying that there can be many consequences, but how about sharing a few specific ones?

The statistics are out there for everyone to see. I’m not going to bog this down with the litany of problems that result from them.

It’s a feedback system. It goes both ways. People wrote the constitution, people amend the constitution. The constitution could be described as an expression for the permissions and prohibitions that were authored by our society though various means ranging from drafting a document to protest, rebelling, and total disregard (ex: 18th Amendment).

No. That is not what the founders intended the Constitution to be no matter what you were taught. What they intended is not only clear by how they described it was to work from the Federalist papers but in how they directly formed the amendment process.

Your definition is another legal positivist definition. Therefore I reject it. You have to prove that all law is merely posited by men and is merely the arbitrary expression of men. You have to prove that divine law and natural law do not exist. That law in general is absolutely subjective and relative, before you can even assert legal positivism as a premise.

Otherwise your whole argument is an exercise in circular reasoning. You’re assuming that which you’re trying to prove.

What I was previously saying is that in states where gay marriage is not recognized a homosexual person is not able to designate another person as a person to which they can share information under protection of 5th amendment rights; if demanded by the courts the person has the option of either violating the trust of the other and disclose requested information or be punished by the court system. In states where gay marriage is recognized a person’s spouse has fifth amendment protections and will not be penalized for disclosing personal information on their spouse. This is an example of a right (as in “permission”) that isn’t granted by the state except through marriage.

See above…

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I am constantly amazed that some people wish to impose their “morality” on others and consider this a proper way to go, but when other people use the legal means (the ballot) to fight against that discrimination they scream bloody murder and persecution. Reminds me of the famous line from Animal Farm: “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

That is a self-contradictory argument. Because by it you are in fact “imposing” your morality against those you disagree with.

Subjectivism always sounds nice to live by, but it is impossible to live by in practice.

 

[Ion]

Let’s say a brother and sister, separated at birth, accidentally marry later in life; then discover they are siblings. To complicate matters, this coyple has three healthy childten as a result of their marriage. Now, if you’re in favor of two men marrying for love/personal fulfillment, why would you be against these siblings marrying or remaining married?

It’s grose and with no meaning; brother and sister has one meaning, husband and wife another one; one is against the other so wouldn’t work anyway; it’s animalic and probably Adam’s childrens took it as there was no other alternative.

 

[Tyrion]

That is a self-contradictory argument. Because by it you are in fact “imposing” your morality against those you disagree with.

There is nothing logically inconsistent about it. Of course every “ruler” imposes its value system upon the ruled, at least to some extent. In the times when the catholic church ruled supreme (and don’t even think that there was an **independent **temporal authority back then), every facet of life was prescribed and proscribed, and the church was happy with that arrangement.

Now that the “shoe” is on the other foot, and the rules are changing, some members of the church started to complain about “persecution” and “interference”.

But there is at least one huge difference between the two setups. The religious people are more than welcome to consider the lifestyle of “dissidents” as deviant, disgusting, abominable, etc… No one tinkers with their private life. (As the bumper-sticker says: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one”.) What they cannot do any more - hopefully - is to create the legal system to impose their “value”-system upon those who disagree. However, when they come out into the public sphere, then the rules are applicable to them. Yes, those bakers or photographers who refuse their service to some because they disagree with the customers’ sexual orientation are now SOL. But they are always free to accommodate the customers or change their profession.

You had your time under the sun, when you could declare that homosexuality or adultery are crimes and prosecuted those who engaged in those “criminal activities”. Nor any more. But you are still welcome to your freedom of conscience within your homes and your churches. And if that would be threatened (it will not) then you can come ask for our help. Guess what, you will get it. As Voltaire said: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it”.

So, don’t be a sore loser.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

There is nothing logically inconsistent about it. Of course every “ruler” imposes its value system upon the ruled, at least to some extent. In the times when the catholic church ruled supreme (and don’t even think that there was an **independent **temporal authority back then), every facet of life was prescribed and proscribed, and the church was happy with that arrangement.

This charge is too vague to even address. When did the Church “rule supreme”? How? How did it exercise it’s authority?

Or are you mistaking the acts of secular rulers acting on their own accord? You have got to be more specific if your charges are to be taken seriously at all. There’s nothing rational about something like this.

Tyrion:

Now that the “shoe” is on the other foot, and the rules are changing, some members of the church started to complain about “persecution” and “interference”.

But there is at least one huge difference between the two setups. The religious people are more than welcome to consider the lifestyle of “dissidents” as deviant, disgusting, abominable, etc… No one tinkers with their private life. (As the bumper-sticker says: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one”.)

Sounds like rather that you can’t reconcile the fact that people who follow absolute and objective principles can and do take them more seriously than you do.

Tyrion:

What they cannot do any more - hopefully - is to create the legal system to impose their “value”-system upon those who disagree. However, when they come out into the public sphere, then the rules are applicable to them. Yes, those bakers or photographers who refuse their service to some because they disagree with the customers’ sexual orientation are now SOL. But they are always free to accommodate the customers or change their profession.

Again, this is not a rational argument. Its full of the bigoted and intolerant vitriol that you claim not to abide by. You’re whole argument is prejudicial. That’s not rational, they are simply rationalizations.

Tyrion:

You had your time under the sun, when you could declare that homosexuality or adultery are crimes and prosecuted those who engaged in those “criminal activities”. Nor any more. But you are still welcome to your freedom of conscience within your homes and your churches. And if that would be threatened (it will not) then you can come ask for our help. Guess what, you will get it. As Voltaire said: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it”.

So, don’t be a sore loser.

Again, see above.

 

[Ion]

…
You had your time under the sun, when you could declare that homosexuality or adultery are crimes and prosecuted those who engaged in those “criminal activities”. Nor any more. But you are still welcome to your freedom of conscience within your homes and your churches. And if that would be threatened (it will not) then you can come ask for our help. Guess what, you will get it. As Voltaire said: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it”.

So, don’t be a sore loser.

Your posts are nothing like Voltaire said.
History says a dufferent story. Christianity won against those societies.
Christ is life, and eternal life can be only with him the way he said it. You don’t like it you don’t have it.

 

[Tyrion]

What I said has nothing to do specifically with my arguments but with your apparent ability or inability to follow them reasonably and logically.

When you do that you make yourself out to be worse, more irrational and fanatical, than the theists that you’re arguing against.

Its full of the bigoted and intolerant vitriol that you claim not to abide by. You’re whole argument is prejudicial. That’s not rational, they are simply rationalizations.

As they say: “three strikes and you are out!” Welcome to my (ever growing) ignore list. Buh-bye.

 

[mek42]

The statistics are out there for everyone to see. I’m not going to bog this down with the litany of problems that result from them.

…

Otherwise your whole argument is an exercise in circular reasoning. You’re assuming that which you’re trying to prove.

See above…

I conclude then that there are no temporal consequences for a marriage valid by the State yet invalid by the Church.

By invoking references to divine law and natural law amongst others who do not share your beliefs, everything that follows is also circular. By your own words most of your argument is to be discounted.

 

[inocente]

This is my point, so it seems you agree with me in principle. To wit, gay marriage is a “civil right.” Therefore, anyone who does not support gay marriage does not support civil rights, which leads to “state sponsored bullying” against those who do not support gay marriage.

Do you believe we should be free to disobey any law we don’t like?

“Officer, I felt I had a moral duty to kill them.” “Oh well fine, you’re free to go”.

btw When I looked at the site you linked, there was an ad saying “buy an untraceable assault weapon before they are banned”. Not sure linking to sites like that helps your case much.

 

[inocente]

I am constantly amazed that some people wish to impose their “morality” on others and consider this a proper way to go, but when other people use the legal means (the ballot) to fight against that discrimination they scream bloody murder and persecution. Reminds me of the famous line from Animal Farm: “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

The article doesn’t say why the baker refused them, either he assumed them guilty of a sin they may never have committed, guilty until proven innocent, or it’s something else, but he can’t set himself up to be judge, jury and executioner.

If he doesn’t like the rule of law, he can always move to Southern Somalia or someplace where there is none.

 

[inocente]

It is not a bully; the cake is not ordinary, but an very special one with symbols that mock the bakers beliefs. The accusers somehow “forgot” this part.

With “symbols that mock the bakers beliefs”? Where does the article say that?

 

[inocente]

You have contradicted yourself twice!
Yet you have also stated:
Hasn’t marriage **always **been about love and commitment?

1. Why is it necessary to cite Jesus if you believe St Paul’s teaching that marriage is about love and commitment?

Do you believe St Paul was misrepresenting Jesus or discovered by himself a fact Jesus overlooked?

Did Jesus or St Paul teach or imply that the purpose of marriage is not to make the husband and wife - and their children - happy?

Do you believe the purpose of marriage is** not **to make the husband and wife - and their children - happy?

So you can’t give chapter and verse for your claim that Jesus teaches marriage is about “love and the pursuit of happiness”.