Unrestricted "marriage" for everyone and everything- why not?

[Ethan88]

There are pathologies with a far higher prevalence among homosexual men then among heterosexuals, which are directly related to the sexual practices of homosexual men. I’m not going to draw a picture…the medical statistics are indisputable.

But they’re lowest amongst gay women, so is being a gay women BETTER than being a heterosexual woman or gay man?

Now the church raised that age from twelve (twelve?!) back in around 1930 I believe, so it obviously can change its definition of what is acceptable in a marriage. So do you think that 14 is OK? If not, do you think they should change it? And if they change it, do you think they coul change other criteria?

Very good question, I do hope it is not ignored!

 

[Bradski]

The fact is that from the dawn of humankind, that reality has existed and has come to be generally accepted as what we mean by the word, “marriage.” Humankind could not have persisted without that reality. Who first gave a name to the reality and defined the reality in words is irrelevant. As a reality it originated with the dawning of human kind.

An unbelievably, catastophically, galactically naïve statement.

 

[Peter_Plato]

1st paragraph repeated what you said but ignored my question on the origins of marriage; I really do not care for your opinion on marriage, I’m looking sources.

Marriage originated with the dawning of mankind. What sources do you need to verify that? It is the only way (man and woman coming together sexually and committed to looking after their offspring) that our species could have survived. Do you want sources to explain the idea of gravity before you accept it as being a reality?

Nominalism is a weak philosophical position.

2nd paragraph ended with marriage originating with human kind which is 1, factually incorrect

Really? How did procreation and survival of human young occur, then?

and 2, bizarre.

You are advocating for same sex marriage (an oxymoron) and you are calling me bizarre? That’s ironic and bizarre!

No anthropologist worth their salt would ever,

Anthropologists report things, they don’t write the dictionary nor do they determine reality.

EVER make a ridiculous conclusion up to and including Catholic ones.

3rd paragraph talked about ‘bacteria’ but lead nowhere.

Wait…what???

Scorpions? Bacteria? What are you talking about??? Also, the “verificable notions” you credited me for werent’ triva, they wete fact. Peter, are you trolling me?

Apparently, you wouldn’t understand a logical parallel if it came up and bit you on the …

Excuse me, it’s perfectly applied.

If marriage exists solely for the procreation between a man and a woman then why are you against polygamy?

Obfuscation is clearly what you are good at. What does polygamy have to do with a clear definition of marriage? Polygamy would entail multiple marriages. Whether that is a good idea or not is a separate question and says nothing for or against defining a marriage in the way that it has been properly defined to capture the reality of what it is. Should a man or woman be involved in more than one marriage at a time or sequential in time to more than one individual are ethical, legal and practical considerations, but the definition of marriage as the reality of the union that exists between a particular man and a particular woman for procreation is not abandoned by the possibility that multiple marriages can or should obtain. Those are separate questions.

Again, let’s aim for clarity in our discussion not muddling ideas together to confuse the issue.

Why are you against a 50 year old procreating with a teenage girl? Why do you insist on skipping over this question for the 3rd time?

Am I against a 50 year old having a marriage with a teenage girl? Generally, I don’t think it would be a laudable idea. What does tha have to do with a proper and clear definition of marriage? I could consistently think it to be unwise, impractical, perhaps even immoral, but could still define it as a marriage, all things being equal.
What is your point?

Oh my. I guess that’s what happens when you mix ill-defined words with muddled concepts.

 

[Peter_Plato]

An unbelievably, catastophically, galactically naïve statement.

You misspelled catastrophically.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now the church raised that age from twelve (twelve?!) back in around 1930 I believe, so it obviously can change its definition of what is acceptable in a marriage. So do you think that 14 is OK? If not, do you think they should change it? And if they change it, do you think they coul change other criteria?

What does Church teaching about who should or should not practically and morally become married have to do with the definition of what a marriage actually is? The Church teaching that individuals under a certain age should not “engage” in marriage does nothing to alter the definition of what a marriage actually is. It is just setting out guidelines in terms of how old someone “should” be before they are mature enough to improve the likelihood of entering into a successful marriage.

I fail to see any valid point here.

 

[RiverTam51]

Humans have never created “offspring” a-sexually, to say that our bodies have evolved to do so is ridiculous. Your analogy of different uses for your feet is in a confused attempt to say that because you can and do use your feet for things other than walking that using your sexuality for something other than its expressed biological use is OK, and it’s not. A better example may be saying that my hands are meant for working, but my same hands could strangle a man in his sleep. One is morally acceptable, the other is quite obviously not.

You have just as-good-as-stated that consentual gay sex is morally equivalent to murder.
If nothing seems a bit off to you about that, I have no hope of convincing you. But if anyone reading this sees a difference between private, consentual acts of sex, and violently snuffing out a human life, you might begin to see why the nonreligious do not look to the bible or the magisterium for moral guidance. You might begin to understand why many gays consider Christians homophobic. Perhaps you might even begin to question whether these are really God’s teachings.
All I can think to do at this point is leave and shake the dust from my feet.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It appears that you want to define it in a way that denies reality. Do you really believe that people, outside of the Catholic Church (and even a majority within it), would deny marriage to couples who are incapable of procreation? The definition of marriage, what it means to people in different parts of the world, even in different parts of the same country, and at different times, has never been a constant. It means what people want it to mean – to them.

Perhaps you can catch the logical inconsistency in your statement. Hint: I flagged it in red, to assist you.

Okay, I’ll spell it out for you. You say I am the one who wants to define marriage in a way that denies reality, yet you say marriage means whatever people want it to mean, i.e., it has no objectively definable reality. How is your position not denying reality? You are accusing me of doing exactly what you say people do anyway, i.e., define marriage in their own way.

:doh2:

Incredible that someone who at least understands the meaning of words can convince themselves of such tripe. Oh, pardon me! Did I write that out loud?

Good grief, I even had to pay a dowry to marry my wife. It was part of the process. If I hadn’t promised the money I could not have got married. Was that marriage? I guess mine wouldn’t count as far as you’re concerned. And neither would the vast majority of marriages taking place on a daily basis around the planet. Not that it matters in the least. We’re all getting on with life while you demand that the world stands still for a minute while YOU explain what YOU want everyone else to do.

I am not demanding anything from the world. Marriage is what it is. I could, and have, tried to express that in words, but the reality still exists. You did marry your wife, then? And that has meaning to you and your wife? How could anyone else know that if it merely, “means what people want it to mean – to them?” Your understanding of the term, then, is objectively meaningless for anyone else. So one could, by your definition, marry a goat because it would mean whatever they, and the goat (presumably, in whatever way the goat understood the term), wanted it to mean. Those were your words, not mine!

That’s the problem when words dictate what reality is, rather than merely characterizing reality for what it truly is.

I really don’t think that you realise how small your arguments look to the rest of the world. Well, the bits that might actually take the time to listen to them anyway.

The rest of the world is likely too engaged in reality TV and other assorted mind-numbing activities that reality has become a meaningless, excuse the term, “reality.” They, like you, are convinced that changing a definition is all that is required for changing reality.

Ah! The alchemy of post-modernism. What a magical world that we live in! You don’t like reality, just abracadabra, conjure up a new definition and, hey, reality changes to suit you.
The medieval alchemists would be green with envy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You have just as-good-as-stated that consentual gay sex is morally equivalent to murder.
If nothing seems a bit off to you about that, I have no hope of convincing you. But if anyone reading this sees a difference between private, consentual acts of sex, and violently snuffing out a human life, you might begin to see why the nonreligious do not look to the bible or the magisterium for moral guidance. You might begin to understand why many gays consider Christians homophobic. Perhaps you might even begin to question whether these are really God’s teachings.
All I can think to do at this point is leave and shake the dust from my feet.

Oh quit it with the holier than thou routine!

Christians may be worried for their eternal well-being, in other words, frightened for them, not of them. Whether you lose your soul for killing someone else or some other reason, makes little difference in the end.

 

[Bradski]

What does Church teaching about who should or should not practically and morally become married have to do with the definition of what a marriage actually is?

I’ll reply more at length tomorrow, but in passing…

What has the church teaching have to do with it? Well, this is a Catholic forum and the question was asked of a Catholic (not sure if you are a paid up member) if she thought that the church teaching was correct. Because almost everyone here is giving a definition of marriage which is in lock step with the church.

And the church never changes. Except when it does. So if it has changed once, does anyone think it may change again? And in the meantime, does anyone’s definition do a marriage include fourteen year old children? Not difficult questions.

And I don’t think you’ve much schooling in ancient history if you really believe that people were getting married to raise a couple of kids ‘since the dawn of mankind’. I mean, c’mon.

I’ve just started reading ‘The Origins of Political Order’ by Fukuyama and in the very last page I got to last night, there’s a sentence: ‘We should not underestimate the importance of sex and access to women as a driver of political organisation, particularly in segmentary societies that routinely use women as a medium of exchange’. That was almost all societies in the time he was referring.

That’s what women were - a medium of exchange (hence the still current dowry). And still are in some societies. Thinking that women accepted proposals of marriage and looked forward to bringing up a couple of happy children in a loving relationship, ‘accepting no others For as long as you both shall live’ is galactically naive (think the spelling is ok there). You should read more. And your comment that the rest of the world is too busy watching reality TV shows a disturbingly narrow view of the world.

Do you actually have any experience of other cultures?

 

[DeaconPaulY]

Let me try to put some fundamental perspective on this. The LGBT readers won’t like what I have to say, but it is the truth.

1. 1. God exists. you can deny him but he won’t go away. You can’t vote him out of office and he makes the rules.
   2. God has revealed his requirements for upright living in the Holy Scriptures and in Apostolic Tradition, and most clearly in the life and teachings of his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
   3. regardless of what you want to believe, having sex is not a human right. The countless number of people leading totally happy and fulfilling lives as celibates proves this clinically. what God has told us about sex is that it is a gift given to married couples for the procreation of children and the joy of the married couple.
   4. There is no way to justify homosexual behavior in any way shape or form; so the issue of homosexual “marriage” should be irrelevant. It’s not irrelevant because this sinful age has lost all concern for their eternal souls. they argue points of civil law when they should be looking to the higher law which will never change.
   In a nutshell, this is the truth - God’s truth. You may not agree with it but God is going to explain it to you about one second after you die. It is time to turn on the light of Christ and get out of this age of darkness and disobedience.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ll reply more at length tomorrow, but in passing…

What has the church teaching have to do with it? Well, this is a Catholic forum and the question was asked of a Catholic (not sure if you are a paid up member) if she thought that the church teaching was correct. Because almost everyone here is giving a definition of marriage which is in lock step with the church.

This is irrelevant. The Church’s teaching assumes the reality of marriage as the union of a man and woman, but goes about attempting to safeguard that reality by explicit recommendations and requirements about what is needed for “good” marriages to occur and remain extant. Good marriages are not random events and a great deal hangs on their success: the well being of all the parties involved. Following the guidelines of the Church will make the success and longevity of marriages much more likely.

 

[Ethan88]

Marriage originated with the dawning of mankind. What sources do you need to verify that? It is the only way (man and woman coming together sexually and committed to looking after their offspring) that our species could have survived. Do you want sources to explain the idea of gravity before you accept it as being a reality?

Do you realize you make absolutely no sense? How in the world can you confused “sex” as marriage. Marriage is a social construct, not something that was establish when people had sex.

Anthropologists report things, they don’t write the dictionary nor do they determine reality.

LOL, oh right, anthropologists don’t determine reality but Peter Plato from an internet message board does.

Apparently, you wouldn’t understand a logical parallel if it came up and bit you on the …

Don’t insult me because you can’t properly debate

Obfuscation is clearly what you are good at. What does polygamy have to do with a clear definition of marriage?

So, are you against it?

Am I against a 50 year old having a marriage with a teenage girl? Generally, I don’t think it would be a laudable idea. What does tha have to do with a proper and clear definition of marriage? I could consistently think it to be unwise, impractical, perhaps even immoral, but could still define it as a marriage, all things being equal.

Did you just say you would PERHAPS consider a pedophilic relationship immoral? PERHAPS???

 

[Stephen168]

Why are you against a 50 year old procreating with a teenage girl?

Did you just say you would PERHAPS consider a pedophilic relationship immoral? PERHAPS???

What is your definition of pedophile?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Do you realize you make absolutely no sense? How in the world can you confused “sex” as marriage. Marriage is a social construct, not something that was establish when people had sex.

That union is precisely the biological basis for marriage. It became codified in social mores, moral sanctions and legal codes, but that is what a marriage or union of a man and a woman essentially is. That was Christ’s understanding, as well as the Old Testament view.

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Gen 2:24)

Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matt 19:4)

The union of the couple is the contract between them and the commitment to their progeny. Every other “addition” to that basic fact has been either a human attempt to get around it or an attempt to understand it more clearly, but essentially the physical act is writing the marriage contract with one’s body, even more binding than writing it in blood. It’s called natural law. It is also, if legitimate, an agreement made before God himself. That is why Jesus added, “…what God has joined together, let no man separate…” To break this contract is breaking a sacred vow made to God. The consequences of breaking that agreement are taken very seriously by God. You can be guaranteed of that.

LOL, oh right, anthropologists don’t determine reality but Peter Plato from an internet message board does.

Natural law does not derive from anthropologists, it is from God, whether you acknowledge it or not. I am not determining reality, just reporting it

Don’t insult me because you can’t properly debate.

We’ll see who is ultimately right on this.

Did you just say you would PERHAPS consider a pedophilic relationship immoral? PERHAPS???

If you want to discuss that point, I’d be happy to. However, throwing out innuendo just to score points is not “properly” debating the issue. Reframing the question, "Are you against a fifty year old man being married to a teenage girl? as “Did you just say you would PERHAPS consider a pedophilic relationship immoral?” is being dishonest just to make points. Let me throw the question back at you: “Would you always consider a marriage between an 18 year old (teenage) girl with a fifty year old man as an example of a pedophilic relationship?”

Who is the one not “properly debating?”

By the way, in most states and many countries the legal age of marriage is 16 with consent of parents and, in some, 14 with court consent. Are you claiming that most states are thereby endorsing “pedophilic” relationships?

 

[scipio337]

If we throw out sex (or biological sex, or sexual identity) requirements for marriage, why stick with such Victorian limits to “2”, or even humans, for that matter?

Once we accept that love has no limit in numbers, and that all higher mammals can consent to sexual and loving relationships, we can finally shed our bourgeois notions of “marriage” and unleash the union to its ultimate potential! It’s all about “Who do you love”?

Delphinic marriages…now!!

 

[Bradski]

Nonsense! The reality of what marriage as a specific reality is, is very clear. There have been all kinds of misconceptions about it in history.

But this is your conception of marriage. In fact it’s the Catholic Churches view. And you have the nerve to say that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is simply wrong. That there can be people in other cultures that have a totally different views seems to have escaped your attention. Your description is not and has never ever been the norm for marriage. Not since ‘the dawn of mankind’ or any other time. It’s an idealised view of how you’d like the world to be.

…yet you say marriage means whatever people want it to mean.

The only definition that ties anyone down to specifics is what the state declares are the current rules in whatever part of the world you’d happen to be living. It does, literally, mean different things to different people. The definition I gave earlier is simply mine. Other people may agree or have different interpretations. But for you to say that your definition has always been the traditional one, which is so off the mark it’s not even wrong, and then to demand that everyone else must abide by it is effrontery of the highest order.

What does Church teaching about who should or should not practically and morally become married have to do with the definition of what a marriage actually is?

It’s because…

Following the guidelines of the Church will make the success and longevity of marriages much more likely.

And let’s try this one more time:

…and I asked you what age you’d consider being acceptable. The Church says 14 and I’d say the church is wrong in this as I believe it is on other associated matters.

Now the church raised that age from twelve (twelve?!) back in around 1930 I believe, so it obviously can change its definition of what is acceptable in a marriage. So do you think that 14 is OK? If not, do you think they should change it? And if they change it, do you think they could change other criteria?

Is there going to be another deafening silence?

 

[Ethan88]

Peter is an amateur debater, perhaps a teenager, it’s hard to argue with someone who when shown evidence contrary to his opinion, says:
"Peter Plato:

Natural law does not derive from anthropologists, it is from God,

…and uses that as a definition for marriage, when really natural law includes anything seen in nature, such as cannibalism. Perhaps when he hits college, takes a logic course or two, he’ll understand that simply stomping your foot and saying “God says so” convinces no one, even people who believe in God.

If you want to discuss that point, I’d be happy to. However, throwing out innuendo just to score points is not “properly” debating the issue.

Great dodge, I assume this is the 4th time now? Why are you so afraid of answering the question?

If we throw out sex (or biological sex, or sexual identity) requirements for marriage, why stick with such Victorian limits to “2”, or even humans, for that matter?

Once we accept that love has no limit in numbers, and that all higher mammals can consent to sexual and loving relationships, we can finally shed our bourgeois notions of “marriage” and unleash the union to its ultimate potential! It’s all about “Who do you love”?

Delphinic marriages…now!!

I take it that you didn’t read a single post here.

 

[Stephen168]

What is your definition of pedophile?

Great dodge, I assume this is the 4th time now? Why are you so afraid of answering the question?

Why are you so afraid of answering the question?

 

[Stephen168]

Marriage is the lifelong commitment of a man and woman who come together for the procreative intent of having offspring and caring for each other and their progeny.

But this is your conception of marriage. In fact it’s the Catholic Churches view. And you have the nerve to say that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is simply wrong. That there can be people in other cultures that have a totally different views seems to have escaped your attention. Your description is not and has never ever been the norm for marriage. Not since ‘the dawn of mankind’ or any other time. It’s an idealised view of how you’d like the world to be.

It is more than the Catholic Churches view. Many cultures share that view. Many since the dawn of mankind. Do you have an alternate defintion that will cover a larger scope of people and time than Peter’s?

 

[Ethan88]

Why are you so afraid of answering the question?

I’m not, it’s a silly question, because you guys are under the premise that definitions are self-made (which is ironic for the gay marriage issue). My definition of pedophilia is the same as any dictionary, besides, would it matter if mine was different?

It is more than the Catholic Churches view. Many cultures share that view. Many since the dawn of mankind. Do you have an alternate defintion that will cover a larger scope of people and time than Peter’s?

Excuse me, he didn’t tell us where marriage originated, he just said “it’s been that way since the dawn of mankind” which makes no sense because first, it assumes sex is marriage and two, it assumes that it started off predominately with a man and a woman (as opposed to man and mulitple women, a man and his sister, a man and pet donkey).

Peter does not know how to argue, I’m sure as soon as he graduates high school and takes a class in logic or debate he’ll understand why saying something “I disagree with anthropologists because they’re not God” makes you look like a troll.