How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ]
 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What exactly IS marriage anyway?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


250 posted 06-20-2004 07:13 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I am so completely bored with this that I don't know what to do. No, I won't stop it, but guys can you start another thread?

To be honest, I feel like this is the dumbest thing to continue about.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


251 posted 06-20-2004 05:33 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Brad,

Your silence was enough to communicate your lack of interest in this thread.

Why not start another thread that is intensely relevant and interesting, rather than just say this one is stupid?  (after all that could be a bit insulting to those who don't share your feelings)

Besides, I've been wondering what the record is on the longest thread in PIP ... are we getting close?  


Stephen
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


252 posted 06-21-2004 07:51 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Stephen, go look at that geography game thread in the lounge. No, this isn't close. Sorry.

Ron:

'But someone usually does get hurt, Amy. Intimacy, for most, creates an emotional bond, and the only way two bonds can be equal is for both to reflect a lifetime commitment (rare though that may seem today). When two people part with absolutely no hard feelings, one of them is probably lying.'

That's not what I meant, Ron, and I'm pretty sure you know that. Of course people get hurt when their feelings get involved. That's a natural part of a relationship. What I meant, without being so specific, was that nobody gets hurt in the sense that nobody should walk away from sex all black and blue... unless, of course, they specifically said that's what they wanted. I wasn't really talking about realtionsihps, I was talking about the act.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


253 posted 06-24-2004 11:40 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Adultery and homosexuality aren't analogous, Stephen, because one is a betrayal and the other is not. Any "significant love, feelings, and commitment" in adultery is at odds with an earlier promise to NOT pursue or act upon such feelings. There isn't necessarily any such similar conflict in a sincere homosexual relationship



Ron, I never said that adultery and homosexuality were sins for the same reason.  I was merely giving Essorant an example of a sin where often love and deeply felt emotions are operative.  It is also an example of a sin which is often rationalized and self-justified because of the presence of those very things.  But you misunderstood if you thought I was claiming adultery and homosexuality were the same.  One similarity between them though, is that they both depart from God's plan for human sexuality... one by betraying their spouse, the other by betraying their own (and their partner's) gender.



quote:
Why should we care, beyond simple historic curiosity, about the Judaic mind? More importantly, why should we accept their interpretation of God's deeply objective order? The culture of 2,000 years ago shouldn't dictate the way we live our lives today, especially when we know they were wrong about so very many things.



I wasn't refering to mimicking an ancient mindset on every particular.  Of course when true correction comes, I don't want to deny it.  What I was referring to was refusing to surrender their basic world-view, which was given by Revelation.  (Remember that word? ... which means a vertical invasion into culture from beyond, not something merely derived from culture).  That basic worldview is virtually the same as that of Christianity.  It is the Theistic one which says that one God created all things according to an order and plan as revealed in Old Testament (and New Testament) scripture.  So for you to disparage the "Judaic" mind as if there were something intrinsically undignified about learning their wisdom, or acknowledging that perhaps God gave them something we need to acknowledge, is amazing to me considering your profession of faith.  

Scripturally speaking, you and I are still only an ingrafted branch in the same Olive Tree.  Where it gets touchy is when the question involves rejecting non-essentials versus rejecting essentials.  Shedding a dead limb or leaf, versus claiming autonomy as a spurious seedling.  It's my opinion that your tendency is to deny foundational things, based on the spirit of this age.  Your feelings about the homosexual issue seem to stem from the mood and mindset of contemporary culture, from ultra-tolerance.  While mine is derived from scripture (which I consider authoritative) and Church history (which I consider persuasive).  Neither of us are holding some kind of empirical "proof" to devastate the opposing view.  Our ideologies, philosophies, or theologies seem to be at odds.  And really I think it's our whole attitude of what scripture is, and the scope of its immutability and authority, which differs.  


But even by your standards ... you can't reject something merely because it is ancient.  And I think, for the purpose of determing what scripture actually says, (which was the subject of my exchange with Essorant), determining what the Jews thought and understood in the area of sexual ethics was perfectly proper.

Stephen  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


254 posted 06-25-2004 12:21 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Hush,
quote:
Stephen, go look at that geography game thread in the lounge. No, this isn't close. Sorry.



Yikes, you're right.  I don't get around enough in this place.     Only 49 more pages to catch up with that one!  But how about the longest thread in PHILO101?  Any idea?


Stephen.
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


255 posted 06-25-2004 01:53 PM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

Yea..this thread has about covered it...but, I'm glad Noah took a woman with him on that arc...aren't ya all?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


256 posted 06-26-2004 08:30 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:
Of particular concern even for the nonreligious is the effect gay marriage could have on two of our founding principles - religious freedom and freedom of speech. Once the courts recognize gay marriage as equal in all ways to heterosexual marriage, then everyone else - including churches - has to recognize gay marriage as equal, too.

Any opposition will be deemed hateful by definition, and anyone who opposes gay marriage will be a hatemonger. Given that many religions and denominations teach that homosexuality is a sin, church attendance alone could suggest you're homophobic. To the extent that one believes or preaches scripture, one is a bigot.

Hence some of the deep concern among legal professionals, as well as theologians. A secular world that ratifies homosexual marriage would provide a legal foundation that would open the floodgates to civil litigation against religious leaders, institutions and worshipers.

In such an environment, churches might be sued for declining to provide their sanctuaries for gay marriages, for example. Ministers could be sued for hate speech for giving a sermon on moral behavior. Churches that protest homosexual unions could face revocation of their tax exemption status.

The delicate balance between church and state, in other words, is teetering on a high ledge at this moment. It's ironic that those who oppose churches' involvement in state concerns nonetheless have no compunction when it comes to the state dictating what churches can do. Even nonreligious folk should be concerned.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040626.shtml


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


257 posted 06-26-2004 08:59 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"Once the courts recognize gay marriage as equal in all ways to heterosexual marriage, then everyone else - including churches - has to recognize gay marriage as equal, too."

Heaven forbid!  That people recognize two equal humans' marriage as two equal humans' marriage!

[This message has been edited by Essorant (06-26-2004 09:50 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


258 posted 06-26-2004 10:13 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Denise is just kidding with us, Essorant. Even she knows that argument is a load of brown misdirection, because she's smart enough to see the parallels between homosexual marriage and no-fault divorce. Anyone seen the Church taken to court because they define divorce differently than does the Law? No? Didn't think so.

I see things like this and honestly don't know whether to laugh or to cry.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


259 posted 06-27-2004 08:00 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Time will tell, Ron. There have already been 'clashes' with the courts. The one that comes readily to mind is the ex-lesbian who was told by the court that she must see to it that her daughter must never hear that homosexuality is a sin, not at home, not at school, not at church, or the court will take the child from her. This was in a visitation suit brought by her ex-lover, who won visitation rights and asked for that stipulation and received it. And this ex-lover didn't even have any legal connection with the daughter whatsover, was never given any legal rights by the parent and never went through any adoption proceedings either. I'd certainly consider that this parent has been muzzled regarding freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


260 posted 06-27-2004 08:23 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I think people deserve to be treated innocent until proven guilty.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


261 posted 06-27-2004 10:41 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

I haven't heard anything of that case, Denise, and considering your obvious bias and equally obvious willingness to be swayed by that bias, I would have to hear more of it to respond intelligently. I'm guessing, however, that the part you're leaving out is that the estranged lover who "didn't have any legal connection with the daughter whatsoever" spent more than a little time raising said daughter and was just as much a parent to her as the one "with" the legal connections? I'd guess, further, the judge recognized the inequity and believed both parents should have input into the child's religious training. In which case, of course, it's not a matter of muzzling one parent so much as it's a refusal to muzzle *either* parent.

Sounds like justice to me.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


262 posted 06-27-2004 11:21 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

But even if the court did make a wrong choice about such matters, the blame is not due anything for the people being or not being homosexual.  It is maljudgement on the courts part, and perhaps in deal of the people involved; a specific blame is due to those involved, not the whole justice system or all homosexuals.  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


263 posted 06-27-2004 09:32 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I think not muzzling either parent would be to allow both parents to each express their individual points of view or convictions on a given matter, without disparaging or disrespecting each other in the process, stating to the child that it is a point upon which each parent has chosen to agree to disagree since they just don't see eye to eye on the issue.  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


264 posted 06-28-2004 02:24 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

If she is allowed to be made out as a sinner to the child, how shall the child feel around her?  Shall she wish to ever see her again?  

How is that fair to the child or to the woman?
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


265 posted 06-28-2004 10:39 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Well, I see Denise's point. It is an intrusion on a person's religious right to say "You can't teach this tenet of your religion to your kid." However, I would honestly imagine that a woman who had lived as a lesbian and apparently found God (is that the case here? Seems like where you're arguing from, Denise) would still be fairly tolerant to the lifestyle... I agree that if she can say, in a respectful manner, "Honey, I've come to believe that my choices were wrong..." why shouldn't she be able to?

On the other hand, I really don't think the dystopia of churches being forced to marry people of the same sex will come to pass. There are churches tolerant to homosexuality, even branches of Christianity, so I think those trying to overturn to attitudes of more mainstream religions will be few enough to be 'outvoted' per say.

Then again, what about churches that seem to be heading in the direction of their own accord? Remember the controversy (It was maybe 6 months ago) about the gay Episcopalian priest?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


266 posted 06-28-2004 11:50 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

It sounds to me like the mother is only bidden to shield her child from the teaching that homosexuality is a sin.  And that to me is rightful.  
The child deserves to come to her own judgement as naturally as possible without a judgement being forced into her at a young and an uncritical age to preponderate as she grows up.  
A condemning of homosexuality would be impressed upon her, and demonize the other other woman as a sinner.  And how shall she feel about being around the other woman after that?  Usually people don't wish to be close to sinners.  Usually people avoid a "sinner"  
Let a child be a child and grow up! And when she grown up more, then she shall have true judgements about these things.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


267 posted 06-28-2004 03:18 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I think not muzzling either parent would be to allow both parents to each express their individual points of view or convictions on a given matter, without disparaging or disrespecting each other in the process (emphasis added)

Exactly, Denise.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


268 posted 06-28-2004 06:51 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Well, I see Denise's point. It is an intrusion on a person's religious right to say "You can't teach this tenet of your religion to your kid."



What Denise is missing Amy, is that when your life comes the point where you find yourself in front of a judge the rights and priveledges you enjoyed before being in front of that judge are about to change.  

This judge didn't go up and down the street looking for someone to persecute.  This couple came before the judge, as any separating or divorcing heterosexual couple would, to resolve a dispute they could not resolve themselves.

That's what happens when you can't come to an agreement... the judge will do it for you.

It's all within due process.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


269 posted 07-01-2004 11:35 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Conclusion:


Below and above
Forever Love is Marriage
And Marriage is Love!

[This message has been edited by Essorant (07-02-2004 10:00 AM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


270 posted 07-03-2004 08:00 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I don't think that disagreeing with someone necessarily equates with disparaging and disrepecting someone. It depends upon how the disagreement is handled, I think. And silencing disagreement by falsely equating disagreement with disparagment and disprespect is wrong, which is where I think this judge is in error.

How would a divorced Catholic mother, for example, be able to comply with a similar ruling by a judge, that she must never allow her children to hear, at home, at school or at church, at the risk of losing custody, that divorce is a sin because it might cast the father, who sought the divorce, in a bad light? It's an impossible order to be followed, at least without keeping the kids home from church and not sending them to Catholic school. And I think any judge who puts a parent in that position is violating the Constitution.

Despite disagreement on various issues between partners, children can still be taught to honor and respect both parental figures despite any faults or perceived faults. At some point all kids, I think, come to realize that neither of their parents are faultless, but love them anyway.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


271 posted 07-03-2004 12:18 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Due Process IS Constitutional Denise.  It is the means by which our rights may be abridged.

Consider a restraining order.  It limits both free speech and freedom of movement.  It happens all the time.  That's what judges do... determine who's rights override someone else's rights.

Consider the parent who can't move to another state or else violate the other parent's rights to visitation.  

Ain't love grand?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


272 posted 07-03-2004 10:03 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I don't think any judge is acting within the Constitution when he/she rules in such a way that religious expression is silenced.

I think what a judge should do in such cases, when one partner petitions the court asking that restrictions be enacted that can't help but abridge the religious practice or expression of the other partner, is to tell the petitioner that what they are asking for goes against the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and as such the judge has no authority to rule on the issue.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


273 posted 07-03-2004 10:51 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I believe the judge must always show  evident and substantial reason for a judgement against a religious doing; that it is become a threat, misdemeanour, or defames, or provokes wrongs and violence, etc. And thereby the judge shows a legal and constitutional ground for forbidding the continuance of this or that.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


274 posted 07-03-2004 11:24 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

At the very least, half of all parties to a court's decision will be in disagreement.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors