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

[Stephen168]

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?

So by definition a pedophile has a sexual attraction to children too young to reproduce, therefore believing it is OK to marriage a person old enough to reproduce is NOT a “pedophilic relationship.”

 

[Stephen168]

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).

No, he said marriage has to do with creating children. Sex and reproduction are related but not the same thing. It is possible to have sex and not reproduce (about a third of the time if my memory is correct.) He also said it started with the first humans, if we know where that is then we would know “where marriage originated.” A man and his pet donkey cannot reproduce, neither can two humans of the same sex, so neither of them would be marriage. Yes marriage with multiples wives would still satisfy that definition of marriage.

You didn’t answer the question either: Do you have an alternate definition that will cover a larger scope of people and time than Peter’s?

 

[Peter_Plato]

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).

Marriage originated in the biological nature of human beings to procreate. Where else could it have? As to your insistence that it is primarily a social contract, that is just false. It is not essentially a social contract because it hinges upon the biological capacity to procreate. There would be no need to socially codify a marriage if it weren’t for the biological reality that when a man and woman join together sexually that is the way the human race is propagated. The social norms are there to protect the parties and the resulting children to the benefit of all precisely because this union is so crucial to the survival of humanity. The social contract would be worthless without the biological reality underpinning it.

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.

If my capacities to argue really fit your description, then that doesn’t speak well of your ability to respond since you have not presented a response other than attempts to demean me personally. Is that how you learned to use logic in debate? Your philosophy professor must be proud!

I have taken on every one of your points. You have left mine untouched by anything remotely resembling what could be reasonably called a meaningful reply. C’mon Ethan88 you can do better than a high school student! (Actually, I’m in grade 6. So I take your words as complimentary.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

…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.

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

This isn’t even worth a response, because there is no substance to this reply. You are confusing the naturalistic fallacy with natural law (see underlined section above).

Where did you study logic?

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

So your opinion is that everyone has a different idea of what marriage is, but the fact that I have an idea that is opposed to yours is an “effrontery” of the highest order. Hmmm. Let me think about that. Everyone is entitled to have their own idea except me because my idea is contrary to yours. So what makes your idea the correct one? And why are you trying to impose it on me by claiming my claims are an affront to you? How can that be if you are claiming that no one is correct?

This self-contradiction is merely your opinion and to demand that everyone else abide by it is an effrontery to logical thought.

It’s because…
And let’s try this one more time:
Is there going to be another deafening silence?

It is more aptly called a pregnant pause.

 

[Sky_River]

It wouldn’t be a marriage. We already have a name for it: friendship. Why create ambiguity by making definitions more murky than they already are?

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.

Why does this need to be redefined?

Come up with new words to define some other state, but why redefine something that has a reality of its own? A same sex union or some other “loving” relationship is not what is adequately defined above as marriage. These other states mean something else, quite entirely.

There might be legal justification for extending something like tax or beneficiary benefits to other relationships, but there is no need to redefine the meaning of marriage, just change tax laws to include other relationships under the law. What is the point of muddling terms?

While we’re at it, let’s call all animals, “humans,” all planets, “Earths” and all cars, “Buicks,” just because we don’t like definitional precision. It’s nonsense. If we’re really thorough, we could trim the English dictionary down to just a few thousand words.

Umm, the bible says that fornication is sinful. If the only difference between a marriage and a very close-long term friendship is the sexual elements, then the bible wouldn’t condemnn fornication. But that’s is not the case. There is much more to a marriage than just all of the sexual elements, such as a binding lifelong covenant and a promise to spend their lives together in a state of friendship/companionship (but expressed through a formal promise/holy covenant)…

so, your arguement against what I said doesn’t really make a whole lotta sense to me…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Umm, the bible says that fornication is sinful. If the only difference between a marriage and a very close-long term friendship is the sexual elements, then the bible wouldn’t condemnn fornication. But that’s is not the case. There is much more to a marriage than just all of the sexual elements, such as a binding lifelong covenant and a promise to spend their lives together in a state of friendship/companionship (but expressed through a formal promise/holy covenant)…

so, your arguement against what I said doesn’t really make a whole lotta sense to me…

How does that disagree with what I said?

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.

Fornication attempts to separate the inherent value and creativity of life (procreation) from the sexual act. Since the purpose of the sexual act is the union of two in order that the love between them becomes a creative and fruitful new reality (embodied in the one unit of the family), the two individuals essentially become a new “one,” a family unit. Because the sexual act is so intimate it is a complete self-giving, body and soul. When each partner completely give themselves over to the other they essentially become a new entity, one new entity that has the amazing potential to create itself in reality, concretely as the new life (child) born to it. That is the reality of marriage that underpins the social contract, but of which the social contract is only a pale facsimile.

Same sex coupling has no potential to be fruitful. It cannot realize itself in physical and spiritual space by bringing a new being into existence, therefore it can only pretend to be a marriage. Married love taps into the productive potential that exists in biological nature but is reflective of a far deeper complimentary and creative love between a man and a woman.

On the other hand, fornication seeks pleasure for its own sake, not for true unitive love because commitment is missing. The commitment to total self-giving without reserve because that had been promised previously (adultery is betrayal of a previous commitment to another).

Same sex coupling is essentially friendship with fornication privileges and that is all it will ever be. It will always be self-limiting because only the biological and spiritual natures of a male and female are complimentary, and teleologically directed to completeness of life and love. They are two parts of the same whole designed to fit together.

Of course, atheists cannot see this because for them nature stops at biology and the physical. Deeper realities are not recognized, so their view is necessarily limited to begin with. :bighanky: Poor things!

Recall your initial post:

So why can’t two men or two women who have a platonic best-friend relationship have a totally platonic marriage with each other???

It wouldn’t actually be a marriage is the answer, and you simply cannot magically define it to be.

 

[Bradski]

Marriage originated in the biological nature of human beings to procreate.

This is really becoming surreal. I simply can’t believe that you can go from the fact that people ‘at the dawn of mankind’ had children to therefore there must have been marriage. This now becomes your argument:

Marriage is about having children.
People from the earliest times have had children.
Therefore there must have always been marriage.

And what is the definition of marriage? Well, it’s always been about having children. See above…QED!

I’ve got this weird picture in my head of a couple of stone age people living in married bliss. The Flintstones come to mind. Maybe that’s where the idea comes from.

So your opinion is that everyone has a different idea of what marriage is, but the fact that I have an idea that is opposed to yours is an “effrontery” of the highest order.

You’re not reading what I’m writing. I could care less what you think about marriage. I could care less that it’s different to mine. But if you have an idea of what you think it should be…

…and then to demand that everyone else must abide by it is effrontery of the highest order.

I’m sure you appreciate the difference between what you said and what I wrote.

Hmmm. Let me think about that. Everyone is entitled to have their own idea except me because my idea is contrary to yours.

Not so. As above, I don’t really care what you think about it.

So what makes your idea the correct one?

It isn’t. There is no ‘correct’ idea. As I said, it means different things to different people. My idea is actually a little different to my wife’s. Her idea is different to my daughter’s and hers is different to my brother’s. We all have different ideas on what constitutes a marriage. The only commonality is probably the definition I gave earlier and the fact that for it be to be legally accepted as a marriage, we have to abide by, in this case, Australian secular rules and regs.

And why are you trying to impose it on me by claiming my claims are an affront to you?

I’m not. I don’t care (for the umpteenth time) what you consider marriage to be. I don’t want you to comply with what my idea is. You are free to define marriage as you see fit. You are free to marry as you see fit. But you are not free to impose your ideas on everyone else.

When the state declares marriage to be between two people as opposed to a man and a woman, then it won’t affect you, or your marriage, or the Catholic Church one whit. And, I am pleased to say, your Flintstones argument is not in any way, shape or form, going to prevent that happening.

It is more aptly called a pregnant pause.

In relation to the question on the church changing its mind on the criteria for marriage? And the fact that it considers it OK for children of 14 to marry and have sex? And whether anyone personally agrees with that criteria? Maybe everyone is formulating a reply. Maybe you’re doing that right now.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But you are not free to impose your ideas on everyone else.

Whatever you mean by “imposing” my ideas, you certainly can’t mean I have no right to express them, do you?

I am not coercing or forcing my ideas on anyone else. I am stating my view of what marriage is in reality. You can disagree with that, but to simply deny that marriage has any fundamental reality is not a tenable position.

By advocating your position you are also attempting to “impose,” if this is what you mean, by swaying the opinion of others of your own non-view of marriage. If you have a right to expound your view, I have an equal right to expound mine without your censure.

Simply because you lack a positive case for your position does not mean I have to refrain a positive case for mine. That is not coercive, it’s being persuasive.

The “imposing” charge is an emotional appeal against the right of individuals to think for themselves when they disagree with you. As such it has absolutely no place in a discussion.

When the state declares marriage to be between two people as opposed to a man and a woman, then it won’t affect you, or your marriage, or the Catholic Church one whit. And, I am pleased to say, your Flintstones argument is not in any way, shape or form, going to prevent that happening.

You have no idea what the repercussions of this will be on society in the long term and the effects it will have on the rights of dissenters, so this assurance of yours is premature and not comforting, in the least.

In relation to the question on the church changing its mind on the criteria for marriage? And the fact that it considers it OK for children of 14 to marry and have sex? And whether anyone personally agrees with that criteria? Maybe everyone is formulating a reply. Maybe you’re doing that right now.

In all honesty, this question makes no sense because it confuses two aspects at issue.

1. What the Church defines a marriage to be (which has not changed).
2. What the Church believes, in a pastoral sense, is an appropriate age and level of maturity for individuals to enter into marriage (which might change depending on personal and cultural factors).

To say the Church can or should change 1) because it has altered 2) at some point in history does not, if I understand your point (it is not framed as an argument), amount to anything more than rhetoric on your part. Your question relies on an error in the application of reason. The best I can do is point out the error. There isn’t a point to defending what is essentially a category mistake.
Whatever reasons the Church has for changing 2) simply do not apply as considerations for changing 1). Show how you think they do, then I can address a properly framed argument.

For a discussion on whether 14 is an appropriate age for a girl to marry, this thread was set up a while ago to hash that question out if you feel opinion seeking is worth your time.

 

[Sky_River]

How does that disagree with what I said?

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.

Fornication attempts to separate the inherent value and creativity of life (procreation) from the sexual act. Since the purpose of the sexual act is the union of two in order that the love between them becomes a creative and fruitful new reality (embodied in the one unit of the family), the two individuals essentially become a new “one,” a family unit. Because the sexual act is so intimate it is a complete self-giving, body and soul. When each partner completely give themselves over to the other they essentially become a new entity, one new entity that has the amazing potential to create itself in reality, concretely as the new life (child) born to it. That is the reality of marriage that underpins the social contract, but of which the social contract is only a pale facsimile.

Same sex coupling has no potential to be fruitful. It cannot realize itself in physical and spiritual space by bringing a new being into existence, therefore it can only pretend to be a marriage. Married love taps into the productive potential that exists in biological nature but is reflective of a far deeper complimentary and creative love between a man and a woman.

On the other hand, fornication seeks pleasure for its own sake, not for true unitive love because commitment is missing. The commitment to total self-giving without reserve because that had been promised previously (adultery is betrayal of a previous commitment to another).

Same sex coupling is essentially friendship with fornication privileges and that is all it will ever be. It will always be self-limiting because only the biological and spiritual natures of a male and female are complimentary, and teleologically directed to completeness of life and love. They are two parts of the same whole designed to fit together.

Of course, atheists cannot see this because for them nature stops at biology and the physical. Deeper realities are not recognized, so their view is necessarily limited to begin with. :bighanky: Poor things!

Recall your initial post:

So why can’t two men or two women who have a platonic best-friend relationship have a totally platonic marriage with each other???

It wouldn’t actually be a marriage is the answer, and you simply cannot magically define it to be.

i know that the bible and what it says is true but many things can confuse me.

for instance/for example, can you please be a little bit more specific and explain this post.

Same sex coupling is essentially friendship with fornication privileges and that is all it will ever be. It will always be self-limiting because only the biological and spiritual natures of a male and female are complimentary, and teleologically directed to completeness of life and love. They are two parts of the same whole designed to fit together

 

[PRmerger]

When did we discover that animals and imaginary people could give consent? When did we find out that it’s genetically safe for closely related peope to produce offspring?

Who decided that “consent” is the shibboleth for what is a moral liaison?

If all that’s required for a sexual encounter to be moral is “consent” then in this world adultery is just fine and dandy. For is it not 2 consenting adults who are enjoying this sexual encounter?

 

[Bradski]

Whatever you mean by “imposing” my ideas, you certainly can’t mean I have no right to express them, do you?

Express all you want. I support that the church should state its views as clearly as it wants to as well. But the Roman Catholic church is actively attempting to impose its views on everyone. That is, it says this is our belief of what marriage is and we want that to be the standard, not just for Catholics, but for everyone. That is not acceptable to me.

I am not coercing or forcing my ideas on anyone else. I am stating my view of what marriage is in reality. You can disagree with that, but to simply deny that marriage has any fundamental reality is not a tenable position.

To who’s posts are you replying? I haven’t said that marriage doesn’t have a fundamental reality. In fact, it has just the opposite. It is real for everyone who enters into it. But the point you keep on ignoring at every stage is that it doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. It never has, it doesn’t now and it never will. And you don’t have to go far to find people who differ in their definition. You and me for a start. Every one of my family for another. Most anyone with a religion or a culture or a nationality other than yours.

If you don’t get your head around this, then you will never understand anyone else’s position who disagrees with you. Your arguments are bouncing off people who are muttering under their breath: he just doesn’t get it. The thing is, anyone who does take a different position to yours finds any reasonable argument easy to understand. The problem is, there simply aren’t many reasonable arguments.

Just a post of two ago we had someone suggesting (again!) that we’ll all end up marrying animals. Ye gods and little fishes – how much longer must we listen to that sort of tripe? Is that still considered a reasonable argument on your side of the fence? Isn’t someone going to drag him off by the sleeve and tell him to shut up for heaven’s sake.

We had a minister in the Opposition down here who tweeted something similar a few weeks back and the whole country wondered if he’s lost his mind. I mean seriously. Lift your game or leave the stadium, please.

By advocating your position you are also attempting to “impose,” if this is what you mean, by swaying the opinion of others of your own non-view of marriage. If you have a right to expound your view, I have an equal right to expound mine without your censure.

On this we can agree. I have an opinion and if I state it, then others may think about it and either agree with me or disagree. But I’m not here to change your mind on the matter. And I don’t want my views imposed on anyone. I don’t want the church to have to carry out same sex marriages and I don’t want them silenced in any way in condemning what they feel is a mortal sin. But I don’t want you telling me that the state must rule according to your particular views and that everyone must abide by them. Therein lies a theocracy.

Simply because you lack a positive case for your position does not mean I have to refrain a positive case for mine. That is not coercive, it’s being persuasive.

Persuade as many fellow Catholics as you’d like. You’ll need to, because over half of Catholics have no problem with it. Get your own house in order and you might have some high moral ground you can claim as your own. As it is, half your troops are fighting for the other side.

cont’d…

 

[Bradski]

The “imposing” charge is an emotional appeal against the right of individuals to think for themselves when they disagree with you. As such it has absolutely no place in a discussion.

Then put it to bed by agreeing that you don’t want to impose your views on anyone who is not Catholic. You may find the argument simply disappears.

You have no idea what the repercussions of this will be on society in the long term and the effects it will have on the rights of dissenters, so this assurance of yours is premature and not comforting, in the least.

If you want to prevent it happening, then you’ll have to come up with some better arguments than bestiality. And the effects on dissenters? C’mon, please. Are you trying to imply that it will negatively impact on Catholics if 2 women get married? Again, there are no reasonable arguments to be had.

In all honesty, this question makes no sense because it confuses two aspects at issue.

1. What the Church defines a marriage to be (which has not changed).
2. What the Church believes, in a pastoral sense, is an appropriate age and level of maturity for individuals to enter into marriage (which might change depending on personal and cultural factors).

This is a religious argument. It is based on scripture. Catholics are following the church’s lead on this. For example, it says that marriage has to be procreative. If you follow their lead, you must agree to anyone who can’t have children getting married. If you follow their lead, you must agree that it must be a woman and a man. If you follow their lead, you must agree that a 14 year old girl can have sex.

But the church has changed. It was literally within living memory that if you followed the church you must agree that a twelve year old girl can have sex. No person in his right mind would agree with that and I don’t think you’ll find many people who will agree with 14. I certainly bet you don’t

So you can follow them on some things, but, hang on, 14 is a bit young, so we’ll skip that. The church is right…except when you disagree with it. So some of your flock have taken that one step further and said it’s OK for people who can’t have sex to get married. And some have gone further again and said that it wouldn’t affect them in any way if same sex marriages were allowed.

You’re fond of the slippery slope argument, so here we have another. Up the age from 12 to 14 and now see where it’s got us. You know what they say about bad rules: people ignore them. These are your rules and you are ignoring them.

Who decided that “consent” is the shibboleth for what is a moral liaison? If all that’s required for a sexual encounter to be moral is “consent” then in this world adultery is just fine and dandy. For is it not 2 consenting adults who are enjoying this sexual encounter?

Oh no, PR. Not again. Please. Not with the back rub again.

We’re talking consent for marriage. Not sex. Despite what some people believe, the two are not neccesarily connected. Can we stay on topic?

 

[Sky_River]

Then put it to bed by agreeing that you don’t want to impose your views on anyone who is not Catholic. You may find the argument simply disappears.

If you want to prevent it happening, then you’ll have to come up with some better arguments than bestiality. And the effects on dissenters? C’mon, please. Are you trying to imply that it will negatively impact on Catholics if 2 women get married? Again, there are no reasonable arguments to be had.

This is a religious argument. It is based on scripture. Catholics are following the church’s lead on this. For example, it says that marriage has to be procreative. If you follow their lead, you must agree to anyone who can’t have children getting married. If you follow their lead, you must agree that it must be a woman and a man. If you follow their lead, you must agree that a 14 year old girl can have sex.

But the church has changed. It was literally within living memory that if you followed the church you must agree that a twelve year old girl can have sex. No person in his right mind would agree with that and I don’t think you’ll find many people who will agree with 14. I certainly bet you don’t

So you can follow them on some things, but, hang on, 14 is a bit young, so we’ll skip that. The church is right…except when you disagree with it. So some of your flock have taken that one step further and said it’s OK for people who can’t have sex to get married. And some have gone further again and said that it wouldn’t affect them in any way if same sex marriages were allowed.

You’re fond of the slippery slope argument, so here we have another. Up the age from 12 to 14 and now see where it’s got us. You know what they say about bad rules: people ignore them. These are your rules and you are ignoring them.

Oh no, PR. Not again. Please. Not with the back rub again.

We’re talking consent for marriage. Not sex. Despite what some people believe, the two are not neccesarily connected. Can we stay on topic?

What R u even talking about??? Marriage and sexuality are obviously connected to each other. If that was the case, then there would be no controversy about marriage between two people that are of the same gender, and that controversy only exists because Christians know that homosexuality is a sin, so if two men or two women marrying each other didn’t involve sexuality (as opposed to a platonic relationship between two persons that are of the same sex/gender)

 

[PRmerger]

For example, it says that marriage has to be procreative.

Actually, this is an incorrect explication of Catholic teaching on marriage.

Marriage/sexuality has to be **ordered **towards procreation. That is a distinction that is quite important.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh no, PR. Not again. Please. Not with the back rub again.

Hey. You don’t get to censor what others find important to the discussion.

That’s above your pay grade.

 

[Sky_River]

Actually, this is an incorrect explication of Catholic teaching on marriage.

Marriage/sexuality has to be **ordered **towards procreation. That is a distinction that is quite important.

What do U mean by "marriage/sexuality has to be ordered towards procreation, and that that is a quite important distinction??? I dont geddit…

 

[PRmerger]

What do U mean by "marriage/sexuality has to be ordered towards procreation, and that that is a quite important distinction??? I dont geddit…

What part don’t you get? You do know what it means for something to be “ordered towards”, yes?

 

[Ethan88]

This thread has become a joke, when people like Peter Plato start trolling, then what’s the point? At that point it’s not a discussion, but an argument with a high schooler.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This thread has become a joke, when people like Peter Plato start trolling, then what’s the point? At that point it’s not a discussion, but an argument with a high schooler.

There’s that wonderful logical mind at work again!