Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
Vasudevan Deepak K wrote:
It makes a guy unite with a girl in service to the Lord.
Which Lord? Dont you have about 20? Anyway, this is not so. Marriage is a social tool to keep men in order. Without it society would be chaotic.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Marriage is a social tool to keep men in order.
And to keep marriage itself in order with the marital relationship peaceful for long years, a mutual understanding and a true love is the one which is a desired feature.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson -
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Says who?
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Vasudevan Deepak K wrote: A marriage is a holy function.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish, he'll eat for lifetime. Pradeep Joe
Joe wrote:
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish, he'll eat for lifetime.
Show him where Tesco is and he doesn't have to sit in the cold by a river all day.
-
Oakman wrote:
The only sane reason for a marriage to exist is that it is a legal binding together of two people in an economic partnership for the purpose of raising kids.
Why just for raising kids? It legally defines a support unit between two people. Who has the legal say to make decisions for the other if they become incapacitated. Many heterosexual couples don't have children these days, should their marriages be dissolved?
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Thats a valid point. The government's only interest in any cohabitation situation is the issue of dependency. If one individual is taking care of another individual, than they should probably have some accomodation of that effort from the government in regards to their taxes. Aside from that, it really makes no logical sense for the federal government to concern itself with why two people are living together.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
fat_boy wrote:
Marriage is a social tool to keep men in order.
And to keep marriage itself in order with the marital relationship peaceful for long years, a mutual understanding and a true love is the one which is a desired feature.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis LevinsonVasudevan Deepak K wrote:
And to keep marriage itself in order with the marital relationship peaceful for long years, a mutual understanding and a true love is the one which is a desired feature.
Love has nothing to do with it: that is romantic hog wash which lasts for about 5 minutes until reality settles in along with the thought you might be stuck with this person for a very long time.
-
Marriage is a unique institution; it was not invented by man but by God and as such all debate about redefining it is moot. None of use own the definition so none of us can change it. We can lie to ourselves and attempt to exceed our authority but it makes no difference. You are married if God considers yo married and not if he considers you not and that's an end of it. Anyone who wants to invent some other form of union or statute or institution can do so if they have the power but it is not marriage.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Marriage is a unique institution; it was not invented by man but by God and as such all debate about redefining it is moot. None of use own the definition so none of us can change it. We can lie to ourselves and attempt to exceed our authority but it makes no difference. You are married if God considers yo married and not if he considers you not and that's an end of it. Anyone who wants to invent some other form of union or statute or institution can do so if they have the power but it is not marriage.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Quick, pass the sick bag: that is the largest sack of bullshit I've read so far. Are you actually married? Do you have a clue? Who the hell are you to impose your beliefs on other people? There is no god: marriage is a man made institution and is an arbitrary (and temporary) union of 2 people for whatever reasons they deemed fit at the time they decided to do it. You need to get off that high horse before you fall off.
-
Marriage isn't about the government saying its okay to fuck any more. It certainly isn't about God saying its okay to fuck. The only sane reason for a marriage to exist is that it is a legal binding together of two people in an economic partnership for the purpose of raising kids.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
But it does bring up the broader issue of whether or not we are a culture in any meaningful sense of that word and what institutions within our society should have some degree of authority to define the parameters of that culture. Marriage is about as fundamental to the definition of 'culture' as there is. To maintain that marriage is whatever any two, or more, individuals say it is, and that the rest of us have no option but to accept such associations is to say that we are not a culture in any way at all. I have no problem with such an open, cultureless, society as long as one of the other principles of that society is that I am free to discriminate against any part of it I like, in whatever way I like for whatever reason I like. But if I can be forced by the very same government which is not supposed to define marriage to accept whatever bizarre forms of marriage get created, than what is the difference in that and just leaving society the way it is and force marriage to remain between a man and a woman? Either way, the government is imposing itself upon the definitions of culture.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Marriage is a unique institution; it was not invented by man but by God and as such all debate about redefining it is moot. None of use own the definition so none of us can change it. We can lie to ourselves and attempt to exceed our authority but it makes no difference. You are married if God considers yo married and not if he considers you not and that's an end of it. Anyone who wants to invent some other form of union or statute or institution can do so if they have the power but it is not marriage.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Quick, pass the sick bag: that is the largest sack of bullshit I've read so far. Are you actually married? Do you have a clue? Who the hell are you to impose your beliefs on other people? There is no god: marriage is a man made institution and is an arbitrary (and temporary) union of 2 people for whatever reasons they deemed fit at the time they decided to do it. You need to get off that high horse before you fall off.
Sorry mate, I never got on it. I'm simply reporting the facts, not asserting them on my own authority, has nothing to do with my personal experience, or in fact with me at all. I'm not imposing anything, God is by virtue of being God. You invent the concept of foobulbar then you own it, you get to say what is and isn't foobulbar and when and where it applies. If I come and along and disagree then it doesn't change anything, it's not my concept to change. How much more so with God who's concepts determine the very fabric and operation of the universe. Trying to redefine marriage is like trying to redefine causality, a futile exercise in self agrandisement and self delusion.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Joe wrote:
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish, he'll eat for lifetime.
Show him where Tesco is and he doesn't have to sit in the cold by a river all day.
digital man wrote:
Show him where Tesco is and he doesn't have to sit in the cold by a river all day.
Show him France and the government will feed him for free.
-
You are of course welcome to have an opinion even if, as in this case, it has no apparent basis in fact or reason. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
You are of course welcome to have an opinion even if, as in this case, it has no apparent basis in fact or reason. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew, if you wish to accept ancient biblical writings as the basis for your belief, then do so. Not everybody accepts those ancient biblical writings as fact.
Absolutely, although the logical implication of my accepting something that says it is the truth and everyone should believe it is that I believe that everyone else should believe it too. If I didn't believe that I would be at least a self contradictory hypocrite whatever the fashionable meta-belief system of the time says about 'imposing' ones beliefs. In other words pretending not to actually believe what I believe is against my religion ( and also objectively irrational ) even if it is the only acceptable behaviour in current society. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Sorry mate, I never got on it. I'm simply reporting the facts, not asserting them on my own authority, has nothing to do with my personal experience, or in fact with me at all. I'm not imposing anything, God is by virtue of being God. You invent the concept of foobulbar then you own it, you get to say what is and isn't foobulbar and when and where it applies. If I come and along and disagree then it doesn't change anything, it's not my concept to change. How much more so with God who's concepts determine the very fabric and operation of the universe. Trying to redefine marriage is like trying to redefine causality, a futile exercise in self agrandisement and self delusion.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Damnation: replied to you a while back and it hasn't stuck. Must be gods fault. In any case I like marriage so much I keep doing it and you can't use the word 'facts' and 'god' in the same sentence. There is no connection between the 2. Unless and until you can prove the existence of your god please keep it to yourself: you don't hear me ramming my atheism down people's throats at every opportunity: it's as boring as your theism is. Actually, one thing I don't get is let's say you can prove the existence of your god (and I accept it) why do you feel the need to worship it? Is your god so mentally feeble that it requires the prostrations of mere men to make it feel worthwhile? Seems a bit weak to me.
-
Absolutely, although the logical implication of my accepting something that says it is the truth and everyone should believe it is that I believe that everyone else should believe it too. If I didn't believe that I would be at least a self contradictory hypocrite whatever the fashionable meta-belief system of the time says about 'imposing' ones beliefs. In other words pretending not to actually believe what I believe is against my religion ( and also objectively irrational ) even if it is the only acceptable behaviour in current society. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
that I believe that everyone else should believe it too
Shout it from the rooftops if you so wish. But I will be deaf to your words of wisdom. Since the masses learned how to read and write, they are no longer dependent upon the local vicar's pontifications. We are no longer the ill-educated that can be led by the nose blindly towards a particular belief or religious viewpoint.
-
Damnation: replied to you a while back and it hasn't stuck. Must be gods fault. In any case I like marriage so much I keep doing it and you can't use the word 'facts' and 'god' in the same sentence. There is no connection between the 2. Unless and until you can prove the existence of your god please keep it to yourself: you don't hear me ramming my atheism down people's throats at every opportunity: it's as boring as your theism is. Actually, one thing I don't get is let's say you can prove the existence of your god (and I accept it) why do you feel the need to worship it? Is your god so mentally feeble that it requires the prostrations of mere men to make it feel worthwhile? Seems a bit weak to me.
digital man wrote:
you don't hear me ramming my atheism down people's throats
Strangely that's exactly how your post with statements like
digital man wrote:
Unless and until you can prove the existence of your god please keep it to yourself
comes across. You place your acceptance or otherwise of an argument you demand from me above my right to express what I believe and even above any evidence. This is classic atheism by false assumptions, e.g. my understanding defines reality. God is defined by my understanding of the concept of God. All anthropomorphic projections of my self onto my concept of God are valid and override your understanding of God to the point of being assumable be your opinion. What these all ammount to is the unacknowledged false belief summed up as 'I am God and will accept no rivals', otherwise known as the original sin. None of this is unusual or unexpected, most people hold the same position you do. They are all equally wrong, none of them is God either. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
that I believe that everyone else should believe it too
Shout it from the rooftops if you so wish. But I will be deaf to your words of wisdom. Since the masses learned how to read and write, they are no longer dependent upon the local vicar's pontifications. We are no longer the ill-educated that can be led by the nose blindly towards a particular belief or religious viewpoint.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Shout it from the rooftops if you so wish.
Thank you, I will.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But I will be deaf to your words of wisdom.
Sadly true as without the spirit of God no one is capable of faith.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Since the masses learned how to read and write, they are no longer dependent upon the local vicar's pontifications. We are no longer the ill-educated that can be led by the nose blindly towards a particular belief or religious viewpoint.
This carries the tacit assumption that all such belief and religious viewpoints are false and therefore less likely to be accepted by more educated people. Of course if one such belief or viewpoint were in fact to be true then all good education would only increase the level of acceptance of it. In fact as the fundamental truth all good education would be based on it. Perhaps this is why most of that drive to educate that you identify as having occured was originally led and promoted by Christians, even the predecessors of very vicars you disagree with.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
digital man wrote:
Show him where Tesco is and he doesn't have to sit in the cold by a river all day.
Show him France and the government will feed him for free.
Frogs and wine? :-D
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
digital man wrote:
you don't hear me ramming my atheism down people's throats
Strangely that's exactly how your post with statements like
digital man wrote:
Unless and until you can prove the existence of your god please keep it to yourself
comes across. You place your acceptance or otherwise of an argument you demand from me above my right to express what I believe and even above any evidence. This is classic atheism by false assumptions, e.g. my understanding defines reality. God is defined by my understanding of the concept of God. All anthropomorphic projections of my self onto my concept of God are valid and override your understanding of God to the point of being assumable be your opinion. What these all ammount to is the unacknowledged false belief summed up as 'I am God and will accept no rivals', otherwise known as the original sin. None of this is unusual or unexpected, most people hold the same position you do. They are all equally wrong, none of them is God either. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Err, you started it, I just asked some questions. Deflection and ibfuscation are the cornerstone of, well, you. The are no false assumptions in atheism since there were none to hold in the first place: only theism makes assumptions about their gods. Actually I am god. Prove me wrong.
-
Err, you started it, I just asked some questions. Deflection and ibfuscation are the cornerstone of, well, you. The are no false assumptions in atheism since there were none to hold in the first place: only theism makes assumptions about their gods. Actually I am god. Prove me wrong.
digital man wrote:
The are no false assumptions in atheism since there were none to hold in the first place
That statement proves itself wrong, no further evidence of your lack of Godhood is required.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.