[quote]Thomas Gabriel wrote:
I expected someone to say that. So require them to sign a document saying their baby will be aborted if a pregnancy does occur. Don’t support abortion? Then why is it O.K for doctors to force this document upon women who use accutane?[/quote]
I support abortion.
If they sign the paper, and go through with the abortion, then fine. They can fuck their sister/brother if they really want to.
First, the slippery slope to bestiality is beyond ridiculous.
One objection - and this is my objection - is that the argument for extending marriage beyond traditional binary marriage between one man and one woman is that the extension threatens to redefine marriage out of existence.
The argument for gay marriage goes thusly: if two consenting adults should choose to commit to one another for life, the state shouldn’t be able to stand in the way as a moral or equitable matter, even if it is non-traditional or not mainstream in the culture.
On that principle - that when consenting adults should have their choices honored by the state institution of marriage on the basis of respect for their choices - individuals now define marriage as they see fit.
As such, what consenting adult relationship would not be afforded protection under that principle? Consenting adults are consenting adults - and if we, as a moral matter, refuse to privilege one relationship over another on the basis that all consenting adult relationships deserve equal footing, then what consenting adult relationship can’t claim a marriage relationship?
Bigamy? Polygamy? Polyandry? How about a man marries another man and marries another woman? If we “relativize” all consenting adult relationships, there is no principled way to say gay marriage is allowed, but not polyandry. Not on the basis of the principle above.
That, naturally, ends marriage by defining it out of existence. It would be meaningless, because the principle has no boundaries. “Relativize” all consenting adult relationships as equal, and make them all eligible for marriage, and you effectively have no such thing.
This argument is actually an argument in favor of destroying marriage by a number of libertarians - they want gay marriage on the basis that this “defining away the institution” will get the government out of marriage entirely as a matter of running this course.
I absolutely agree with those mechanics, and I recognize the logical endpoint, but I don’t want to end up where they do - the opposite, in fact. I want marriage and its dividends preserved, with one relationship - the historical relationship that predates all of our desires to experiment - privileged above all the rest.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
You’ve left out Jesus’ exegesis of Genesis 2:
The OT saints did a lot of bad things. The Bible usually shows the consequences of these things. For example, the son of Solomon’s favorite wife (Rehoboam) ended up splitting the kingdom in two and getting a lot of people killed. The point of the narratives is that God draws a straight line with a crooked stick.
Still haven’t convinced me. Christianity is a derivative of Judaism. I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s a bastardized version, but it’s close. The main split (if I understand correctly) came from the interpretation of Jesus. Up till that point, polygamy was considered acceptable.
"[i]Saint Augustine saw a conflict between Roman civil law and Old Testament polygyny. He did not consider it in violation of scripture. He wrote in The Good of Marriage (chapter 15):
[although it] was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful.
Augustine noted that polygamy was not in keeping with Roman custom or law. In chapter 7, he wrote:
Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living. [emphasis added]
"But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom......The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.[/i]"[/quote]
Noah had one wife, Isaac had one wife, Abraham had one wife, Adam had one wife.
The kings of Israel were warned about polygamy, and the Bible presents the consequences of polygamous marriages in the OT. The fact that the Bible remains silent in various instances of it is not an endorsement. I’d like to see where it says to go out and get as many wives as one wants.
Didn’t Abraham have Sarah AND Hagar?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Didn’t Abraham have Sarah AND Hagar?[/quote]
No, he impregnated Hagar contra God’s promise that Sarah would give him a son and now we’re still living with the consequences.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
First, the slippery slope to bestiality is beyond ridiculous.
[/quote]
Yeah, but we’ve done this topic to death. Adam and Steve are old news. Farmer Bob and Betsy the cow shake up the conversation.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Incest: Medical issues may ensue when too closely related. First cousin marriage is legal in many western states, even siblings if I remember correctly in some (gotta check some sources on that). [/quote]
Siblings can get legally married in Sweden. And I actually don’t know of any state in Europe that forbids cousins tying the knot.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
First, the slippery slope to bestiality is beyond ridiculous.
Yeah, but we’ve done this topic to death. Adam and Steve are old news. Farmer Bob and Betsy the cow shake up the conversation.[/quote]
This was the funniest post I’ve read in a long time. I’ve had eggs shot through my nose, which is not a pleasant feeling.
[quote]lixy wrote:
This was the funniest post I’ve read in a long time. I’ve had eggs shot through my nose, which is not a pleasant feeling.[/quote]
That’s because you were an idiot and didn’t use enough pepper.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Thomas Gabriel wrote:
I don’t see why people shouldn’t be allowed to marry animals either.
It saddens me that otherwise intelligent people pull this one out every time a discussion about gay marriage comes up.
The “slippery slope” argument isn’t going away. There’s no logical reason why we can outlaw marrying an animal, a vegetable, or multiple men or women now.
And why should there be?
If someone introduces a carrot as his wife, where is the problem?
The whole idea that marriage must be defined by the state somehow is because it has legal consequences. That is the price of letting governments meddle in private affairs to begin with.
Take government out of this and anyone can marry anything if he finds a priest, rabbi, or spiritual advisor to do it.
Who fucking cares.
On the other thread, you indicated that you thought polygamy would carry with it destabilizing social consequence. Once the polygamists and especially Muslim polygamists get their way, we may find out first hand.
I’m not willing to risk it, but apparently others are. I’m of the “if its not broke, don’t fix it camp.”
[Edit: Here’s what you said:
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=2195998&pageNo=7
To answer your initial question, polygamy is the cultural norm, monogamy is an aberration.
What is also quite common in polygamous societies is to raid other villages to kill men and take their women.
The natural state seems to be a situation where the strongest and most determined men have all the women and the weak masturbate.
That is not exactly a model for a peaceful society and though it seems to be a male fantasy actually very few men would benefit whereas women would have won the lottery because they´d get a man, how ugly or stupid they may be.]
And I would agree. I think the West as it is now in this regard is better than going back to ancient Near Eastern marital values for the reasons you alluded to.
[/quote]
You are not taking into account that we are heading this way anyway.
Nobody needs to be married these days to live with several women and have children with them.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
You’ve left out Jesus’ exegesis of Genesis 2:
The OT saints did a lot of bad things. The Bible usually shows the consequences of these things. For example, the son of Solomon’s favorite wife (Rehoboam) ended up splitting the kingdom in two and getting a lot of people killed. The point of the narratives is that God draws a straight line with a crooked stick.
Still haven’t convinced me. Christianity is a derivative of Judaism. I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s a bastardized version, but it’s close. The main split (if I understand correctly) came from the interpretation of Jesus. Up till that point, polygamy was considered acceptable.
"[i]Saint Augustine saw a conflict between Roman civil law and Old Testament polygyny. He did not consider it in violation of scripture. He wrote in The Good of Marriage (chapter 15):
[although it] was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful.
Augustine noted that polygamy was not in keeping with Roman custom or law. In chapter 7, he wrote:
Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living. [emphasis added]
"But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom......The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.[/i]"
Noah had one wife, Isaac had one wife, Abraham had one wife, Adam had one wife.
The kings of Israel were warned about polygamy, and the Bible presents the consequences of polygamous marriages in the OT. The fact that the Bible remains silent in various instances of it is not an endorsement. I’d like to see where it says to go out and get as many wives as one wants. [/quote]
We already had this discussion and the Bible is against TOO MANY wives.
Solomon was, um, a tad greedy.
God himself says to David that he would have given him more wives, had he asked for it.
Plus, the fact that the Bible comes out against shellfish and planting two crops in one field, but never explicitly forbids polygamy is telling in and of itself.
[quote]orion wrote:
We already had this discussion and the Bible is against TOO MANY wives.
Solomon was, um, a tad greedy.
God himself says to David that he would have given him more wives, had he asked for it.
Plus, the fact that the Bible comes out against shellfish and planting two crops in one field, but never explicitly forbids polygamy is telling in and of itself.
[/quote]
Remember, you’re talking to a Paulite
[quote]orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
You’ve left out Jesus’ exegesis of Genesis 2:
The OT saints did a lot of bad things. The Bible usually shows the consequences of these things. For example, the son of Solomon’s favorite wife (Rehoboam) ended up splitting the kingdom in two and getting a lot of people killed. The point of the narratives is that God draws a straight line with a crooked stick.
Still haven’t convinced me. Christianity is a derivative of Judaism. I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s a bastardized version, but it’s close. The main split (if I understand correctly) came from the interpretation of Jesus. Up till that point, polygamy was considered acceptable.
"[i]Saint Augustine saw a conflict between Roman civil law and Old Testament polygyny. He did not consider it in violation of scripture. He wrote in The Good of Marriage (chapter 15):
[although it] was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful.
Augustine noted that polygamy was not in keeping with Roman custom or law. In chapter 7, he wrote:
Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living. [emphasis added]
"But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom......The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.[/i]"
Noah had one wife, Isaac had one wife, Abraham had one wife, Adam had one wife.
The kings of Israel were warned about polygamy, and the Bible presents the consequences of polygamous marriages in the OT. The fact that the Bible remains silent in various instances of it is not an endorsement. I’d like to see where it says to go out and get as many wives as one wants.
We already had this discussion and the Bible is against TOO MANY wives.
Solomon was, um, a tad greedy.
God himself says to David that he would have given him more wives, had he asked for it.
Plus, the fact that the Bible comes out against shellfish and planting two crops in one field, but never explicitly forbids polygamy is telling in and of itself.
[/quote]
So was God kidding in Genesis 2, Deut. 17:17, Matthew 19, and 1 Timothy?
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
orion wrote:
We already had this discussion and the Bible is against TOO MANY wives.
Solomon was, um, a tad greedy.
God himself says to David that he would have given him more wives, had he asked for it.
Plus, the fact that the Bible comes out against shellfish and planting two crops in one field, but never explicitly forbids polygamy is telling in and of itself.
Remember, you’re talking to a Paulite[/quote]
Not quite, though that is a Mohammedan view:
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
So was God kidding in Genesis 2, Deut. 17:17, Matthew 19, and 1 Timothy?
[/quote]
Well, you can’t say he’s never done it before.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
You’ve left out Jesus’ exegesis of Genesis 2:
The OT saints did a lot of bad things. The Bible usually shows the consequences of these things. For example, the son of Solomon’s favorite wife (Rehoboam) ended up splitting the kingdom in two and getting a lot of people killed. The point of the narratives is that God draws a straight line with a crooked stick.
Still haven’t convinced me. Christianity is a derivative of Judaism. I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s a bastardized version, but it’s close. The main split (if I understand correctly) came from the interpretation of Jesus. Up till that point, polygamy was considered acceptable.
"[i]Saint Augustine saw a conflict between Roman civil law and Old Testament polygyny. He did not consider it in violation of scripture. He wrote in The Good of Marriage (chapter 15):
[although it] was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful.
Augustine noted that polygamy was not in keeping with Roman custom or law. In chapter 7, he wrote:
Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living. [emphasis added]
"But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom......The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.[/i]"
Noah had one wife, Isaac had one wife, Abraham had one wife, Adam had one wife.
The kings of Israel were warned about polygamy, and the Bible presents the consequences of polygamous marriages in the OT. The fact that the Bible remains silent in various instances of it is not an endorsement. I’d like to see where it says to go out and get as many wives as one wants.
We already had this discussion and the Bible is against TOO MANY wives.
Solomon was, um, a tad greedy.
God himself says to David that he would have given him more wives, had he asked for it.
Plus, the fact that the Bible comes out against shellfish and planting two crops in one field, but never explicitly forbids polygamy is telling in and of itself.
So was God kidding in Genesis 2, Deut. 17:17, Matthew 19, and 1 Timothy?
[/quote]
How would I know?
He was definitely not commanding monogamy though.
Genesis:
So God created one wife. That infers that monogamy is what he had in mind how?
Deuteronomy:
Speaks out against TOO MANY wives. Or are you really arguing that kings should also possess only one horse and one gold coin?
Polygamy is implied here.
Matthew:
Jesus says to not divorce a wife to take another. However, that is not what polygamists do, so what is your point?
Timothy:
“A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well”
First that is a letter of Paul. Interesting, but not the official position in any way.
The very mentioning of the deacon having to be the husband of only one wive is telling though. Polygamy seems to have been quite common.
There is also no condemnation of polygamy on moral grounds. There could have been practical considerations, we don´t know.
“And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.” 2 Samuel 12:7-8
So God would have given David more wives, had David found that he had not enough.
Did God see David´s ways as sinful?
No, apparently not:
"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. "
1 Kings 15:5.
So David failed his God in one thing only, and polygamy was not the issue in question.
You think a God that wants people dead because they plant two different crops in one field, wear two different garments or touch a pig skin on shabbath just kind of forgot about that?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
So was God kidding in Genesis 2, Deut. 17:17, Matthew 19, and 1 Timothy?
Well, you can’t say he’s never done it before.[/quote]
Those are the classic passages against and they are all off target.
The “original plan” is no more because Adam sinned, Deuteronomy makes no sense when you interpret multiply in one way and reverse the meaning in the next sentence, Matthew is anti-divorce and Timothy irrelevant.
I think that having the subject as a ballot issue is the correct course of action. This is an issue on which the people should decide if they want this in their community. When the people decide whether or not they want gay marriage to be apart of their community identity, the discussion should be closed.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I also don’t get why so many gays want to be married.
Gay people want it because they can’t have it. They are right in their belief that they are not equal until they can have everything that straight people have.
They are ramming it down our throats because pressing for an extreme position is the quickest way to gain a compromise.
I say let them be married and call it a marriage. It’s time to let people be equal REGARDLESS of what they are.
Well, they’ve still fallen short. They can’t produce offspring on their own. They can have an analogous relationship, but it will never be the same thing as a relationship a husband has with a wife, so they should stop trying to emulate us. Let them do our thing, they do theirs, and quit changing definitions handed down in the tradition of Western civilization. [/quote]
Slavery is a tradition handed down by Western civilization. Tradition by itself is a stupid reason to hold on to a practice.
[quote]wirewound wrote:
Slavery is a tradition handed down by Western civilization. Tradition by itself is a stupid reason to hold on to a practice.
[/quote]
Take out “Western”. Slavery has been practiced by most cultures around the world.