Non-Traditional Forms of Marriage

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

BTW Zillah, those "10 Reasons" are so, so good.

Aren't they? I did just find them though.

*Mental note; expect drunken posts later...*

Yeah I'm stuck in work until 12 I do get to spend the vast majority of work time browsing the internet though.

Zillah

PDN wrote:

If I were that confident about the rightness of my feelings then I would. However, the longer I live the more I've discovered that my feelings get me into trouble and the application of biblical principles gets me out of trouble.

You could do what I do and use a synergistic combination of feelings and rational principles to get you through life. Its working quite well.

I also bet you only use a tiny fraction of Biblical principles to guide you, while ignoring all that stuff about not eating shell fish or making sure that the slaves you own are from a different nation.

PDN

Zillah wrote:

You could do what I do and use a synergistic combination of feelings and rational principles to get you through life. Its working quite well.

I also bet you only use a tiny fraction of Biblical principles to guide you, while ignoring all that stuff about not eating shell fish or making sure that the slaves you own are from a different nation.

Ah, now that would take us into a long discussion about exegesis and interpretation. Then, at the end of it, someone would just say, "Well, unless God gave His revelation in an easy to understand form with diagrams and with simultaneous translation into every human language that has ever been devised then I reject it anyway."

It's too late for those kind of games.

Fallen Seraph

Zillah wrote:

You could do what I do and use a synergistic combination of feelings and rational principles to get you through life. Its working quite well.

I also bet you only use a tiny fraction of Biblical principles to guide you, while ignoring all that stuff about not eating shell fish or making sure that the slaves you own are from a different nation.

Surely this is a moot point? If using the bible works for day to day living, which is what was in question I believe, then what makes it inferior for such a purpose to feelings and pricipals?

Zillah

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Surely this is a moot point? If using the bible works for day to day living, which is what was in question I believe, then what makes it inferior for such a purpose to feelings and pricipals?

The issue was that the Bible's teachings often clash with his feelings.

PDN wrote:

"Well, unless God gave His revelation in an easy to understand form with diagrams and with simultaneous translation into every human language that has ever been devised then I reject it anyway."

I was just thinking about this earlier actually. I find it odd that people can look at books like the Bible or Koran, see what a chaotic mess they are and conclude that "Yes, this is what it would look like if the infinitely wise creator of the universe wanted to convey a message to us."

I would find it very appropriate if God's message of salvation was a mystically understandable text that is legible to all human beings regardless of language. That'd make sense. That'd make me go "Huh, maybe it was written by a God"...

As it is it mostly seems like it was written by superstitious Middle Eastern goat tenders who knew less about the world than the average modern ten year old

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

What say ye? If we jettison the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman, then why not marry a goat?

Is the "traditional" concept of marriage not being between two people who love each other deeply?

In such a case it would be hard to argue that the goat was madly in love with his (her?) owner.

[edit] Oh, this thread is not serious ... oh well, I was all geared up to debate the merits (or lack of) of goat marriage [/edit]

Dades

PDN wrote:

It's too late for those kind of games.

Tomorrow's another day.

Talliesin

PDN wrote:

If we get rid of Bertie Ahern, do you think aggressive secularists will legalise such marriages in Ireland?

Bertie Ahern is the Taoiseach of Ireland. If we get rid of him, whoever replaces him will be the Taoiseach of Ireland. This is a political position, not a religious one.

If any Irish parliament re-introduces same-sex marriage, that will be a matter of the state not any church.

If your particular form of Christianity prohibits same-sex marriage (though there are certainly Christian denominations which allow for same-sex marriage) then I would advise you not to marry someone who is the same sex as yourself.

InFront

Zillah wrote:

I would find it very appropriate if God's message of salvation was a mystically understandable text that is legible to all human beings regardless of language.

Presuming you speak English, which of course you do, you can understand what the Quran and indeed the bible say. As can an Indian, a Spaniard and a Somali all read those books in their own languages.
As for reading the original text or learning another language be that Hebrew or Greek or Arabic, well there is nothing really stopping you from doing that either but your own unwillingness to do so. God won't sit on your shoulder and read to you.

As it is it mostly seems like it was written by superstitious Middle Eastern goat tenders who knew less about the world than the average modern ten year old

I'm not sure about the modern bible, but in terms of the Quran just from a literary point of view and considering it's intricate layout and design, that's a bit like saying that Shakespeare didn't speak English.

PDN

Talliesin wrote:

Bertie Ahern is the Taoiseach of Ireland. If we get rid of him, whoever replaces him will be the Taoiseach of Ireland. This is a political position, not a religious one.

My reference to Bertie Ahern was an in-joke referring to another thread on this board where we all (myself included) had a laugh at Bertie's rant against "aggressive secularists".

If any Irish parliament re-introduces same-sex marriage, that will be a matter of the state not any church.

I am unaware that anyone here has argued anything different, certainly I haven't. I am intrigued by your use of the word "re-introduce". Is this a typo after a Saturday night at the pub, or are you saying same-sex marriage has been legal in Ireland before?

If your particular form of Christianity prohibits same-sex marriage (though there are certainly Christian denominations which allow for same-sex marriage) then I would advise you not to marry someone who is the same sex as yourself.

Well, thanks for the advice, although I don't see that it's related at all to my OP (which was a set of ethical questions with no hint from myself of enforcing my views on others). But I'll return the favour and advise you to marry whoever you feel like.

Hivemind187

InFront wrote:

Presuming you speak English, which of course you do, you can understand what the Quran and indeed the bible say. As can an Indian, a Spaniard and a Somali all read those books in their own languages.
As for reading the original text or learning another language be that Hebrew or Greek or Arabic, well there is nothing really stopping you from doing that either but your own unwillingness to do so. God won't sit on your shoulder and read to you.
I'm not sure about the modern bible, but in terms of the Quran just from a literary point of view and considering it's intricate layout and design, that's a bit like saying that Shakespeare didn't speak English.

He didnt. He spoke "middle English" in Iambic pentameter ... and was a real chore to listen to in the pub.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

Presuming you speak English, which of course you do, you can understand what the Quran and indeed the bible say. As can an Indian, a Spaniard and a Somali all read those books in their own languages

Except, of course, when we point out that the English translations show quite clearly that Mohammed thought the Sun orbited the Earth and possibly believed the Earth to be flat. Then we’ll be told the translation might be a bit dodgy and only the original Arabic is the faultless word of God.

InFront wrote:

As for reading the original text or learning another language be that Hebrew or Greek or Arabic, well there is nothing really stopping you from doing that either but your own unwillingness to do so. God won't sit on your shoulder and read to you.

You’ll understand that what Zillah is getting at (although he’s well capable of explaining himself) is the various holy texts are unclear even after that time and expertise has been invested. Different religious authorities will assign different weights and significance to the same piece of text. Hence, the texts do not provide adherents with a clear explanation of what it is God wants them to do.

So as not to zero in on one particular faith, lets take an imaginary text that illustrates a common problem (I can think of at least one Old Testament and one Quran quote that essentially says what my putative text says).

God appears unto Anto and provides him with a revelation that is to guide mankind for as long as the world lasts. In one bit, God is quoted as saying ‘Yea, and you shall slaughter all the enemies of Anto and thence they shall know that you are my people’.

Ask sincere adherents of Anto what this means, and (without being exhaustive) they’ll likely give you inconsistent interpretations such as:
a. this related to a once-off occasion when Anto was allowed to kill some enemies who threatened the faith. It has no meaning today
b. ‘enemies of Anto’ only means people who threaten the followers of Anto with violence – it’s only giving them a right to self defence
c. ‘enemies of Anto’ means everyone who does not accept Anto, which may include some of the people who hold interpretation a. and b. as their beliefs are so wrong as to be heresy. God is at war with all enemies of Anto.

And there’s all kinds of other questions that simply seem unclear. Was Anto the son of God, or just a prophet? If he was God, then how does he fit in with the all powerful God who made all this? Plus we’ve any amount of sundry sayings attributed to Anto, some of which read a little strange. Do we pay them any heed?

God is all-powerful, and all everything you'd care to mention. Hogwarts probably has books in the library that translate themselves into the language the reader best understands. Why did God produce a less perfect world than JK Rowling? I think Zillah’s right. You’ll nearly think the whole thing was a work of fiction, less satisfying than Harry Potter.

InFront wrote:

I'm not sure about the modern bible, but in terms of the Quran just from a literary point of view and considering it's intricate layout and design, that's a bit like saying that Shakespeare didn't speak English.

This reminded me of a Stephen Leacock parody on Greek Tragedy I read years back. I can’t find the book, but I remember a passage where he commented how you could always see the wonderful humour in Greek classics because a footnote in the text would explain it was humour.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

My preferred option (but, again, I suspect I'm in a minority on this) would be to take marriage out of the civic sphere altogether and for the State to simply regularise unions and partnerships in a non-religious ceremony without any allusion to God. This would apply to heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, and non-sexual partnerships.

Hmm. I and my wife married in a registry office, which had exactly those characteristics. That is exactly what the State does in a registry office "wedding" - regularise unions and partnerships in a non-religious ceremony without any allusion to God. Indeed, your choice of music is vetted to ensure it contains no hymns, and any mention of the G-word earns you a quick polite reprimand. The marriage itself has exactly the same legal standing as a marriage contracted in a church - indeed, the church ceremony has no legal standing except insofar as the priest acts as a registrar of marriages.

Personally, I would see no problem whatsoever with extending this to cover all "ceremonies of committment" as you suggest, as long as each has the same legal force.

I don't think I'd dispute the theist claim to the word "marriage", either. The word describes a contract that in Western society has been mediated by the Church for the last couple of millenia.

From my own point of view, I would have no real issue with describing my marriage as a 'civil union', because that is what it is. Unfortunately for the debate, there are many who want to use the word 'marriage', and feel that the words 'civil union' indicate something second class.

For some, that is because they wish the Church to recognise their union - for others, it is perhaps because they simply lack imagination (apples are apples! marriage is marriage!). For the majority, it is simply a Pavlovian response - marriage is the word that they grew up with, so marriage is what they want. Indeed, for many, a church wedding is what they want, even though church forms no part of their daily lives.

Now, one could say that religion should give up its hold on the word "marriage", simply because so many have invested such meaning - but equally one could say that the word has been invested with a sacred meaning, and those who wish to use it detached from that should get themselves another word.

I certainly think a theist who chose to say to me that I wasn't "really married" because I got married in a registry office, would be running the risk of a sharp retort. On the other hand, one who said that I wasn't "married in the
eyes of God" would meet no opposition. The former may, of course, mean exactly the same as the latter, but simply be more inarticulate - and the reverse. It's very difficult to tell the difference between the inarticulate and the ***hole sometimes.


(BTW, much of the spleen PDN has attracted can be summed up here.)

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Schuhart wrote:

You’ll understand that what Zillah is getting at (although he’s well capable of explaining himself)

Well its always nice when someone makes it so I don't need to post

InFront wrote:

I'm not sure about the modern bible, but in terms of the Quran just from a literary point of view and considering it's intricate layout and design, that's a bit like saying that Shakespeare didn't speak English.

I tried to read it, I honestly did. But it was so rammbling and erratic that I just couldn't maintain any interest. Now, whether thats the word of Allah or its just the feeble attempts of man to translate it I dunno, but either way, from my point of view it was chaotic and formless. Which was not a good marketing decision for God.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

BTW, much of the spleen PDN has attracted can be summed up here.

Just read that blog story - very good.
We could all learn something from it methinks.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Just read that blog story - very good.
We could all learn something from it methinks.

Those who don't need to will, those who need to won't.

gnomically,
Scofflaw

maitri

Nature Boy wrote:

Ok. Care to explain why same sex marriage is wrong?

I don’t think there are any good reasons for saying that same sex marriage is wrong.
BTW, I just went to a same sex partnership ceremony (wedding) this week end. It was lovely. Just two people who loved each other very much and wanted to get married and live their lives together. Nothing unnatural about it at all. Here are pictures from the wedding:

Humanist same sex marriage

(you probably won't be able to read the article )

Actually it was the very first humanist same sex partnership in Norway, and probably also in the world. The Norwegian Humanist Association has been fighting for years to get the licence to marry gay couples as well as heterosexual ones. (They got the licence to marry heterosexual couples two years ago.)

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Those who don't need to will, those who need to won't.

gnomically,
Scofflaw

I read it and thought it was very corny.

Dades

Originally Posted by Scofflaw
Those who don't need to will, those who need to won't.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I read it and thought it was very corny.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.