What's new
By:

Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

babe said:
given the axiom that truth consists of the set of objective facts which determine or characterize the universe or some domain within the universe, and considering that human brains are essentially "imaginary" organs with a limited capacity to comprehend or describe the universe or more likely some much smaller subdomain of reality, it is likely that everything we think is "rational" and/or that we could expect to be "true" is probably only approximately true and probably applies accurately to an even smaller domain. . . ..

So "rational" has only a slight advantage in the claim of "truth" over our irrational notions.

I know with all our chemical fluxes coursing through our bodies there is a comforting release of some dopamine when we are satisfied with our notions, but chemistry can hardly validate merely associated neural phenomena. "Truth" is probably something beyond what we are projecting in our brains.
Click to expand...

A babe post that I actually understand!!! Was that a blast of dopamine I just felt?


:-)
 
At any rate, some of the issues raised (sibling "marriage" or a "marriage" between friends) are issues I question in the context of the "gay marriage" question. When talking bout expanding the definition of "marriage" I have difficulty with limiting it only to relationships where some sort of sexual activity is presumed to take place.

For example, there have been plenty of instances of siblings living together into old age - why not allow them to "marry" and file a joint tax return and get the same benefits accorded to married couples? As has been stated by others, I think the primary purpose is to foster a more stable living arrangement - certainly if children are involved, but even if there is no potential for either "natural" or "adopted" children to be part of the picture - two adults should have access to the same mechanisms that are granted by "marriage" to provide increased stability to their lives.

In my own perfect world, terms like "marriage" and "wedding" would have no legal standing. The legal term would be "civil union" - it would be between two adults and it would convey all the same rights that are granted with what we now call marriage.

"Wedding" would be a term used for the actual ceremony performed by whomever is licensed to do so in front of witnesses according to whatever process the "state" specifies. Marriages would be weddings that would take place in churches/temples (or other recognized places of worship) only.
 
moevillini said:
At any rate, some of the issues raised (sibling "marriage" or a "marriage" between friends) are issues I question in the context of the "gay marriage" question. When talking bout expanding the definition of "marriage" I have difficulty with limiting it only to relationships where some sort of sexual activity is presumed to take place.

For example, there have been plenty of instances of siblings living together into old age - why not allow them to "marry" and file a joint tax return and get the same benefits accorded to married couples? As has been stated by others, I think the primary purpose is to foster a more stable living arrangement - certainly if children are involved, but even if there is no potential for either "natural" or "adopted" children to be part of the picture - two adults should have access to the same mechanisms that are granted by "marriage" to provide increased stability to their lives.

In my own perfect world, terms like "marriage" and "wedding" would have no legal standing. The legal term would be "civil union" - it would be between two adults and it would convey all the same rights that are granted with what we now call marriage.

"Wedding" would be a term used for the actual ceremony performed by whomever is licensed to do so in front of witnesses according to whatever process the "state" specifies. Marriages would be weddings that would take place in churches/temples (or other recognized places of worship) only.
Click to expand...

I still do not get why those who subscribe to organized religion feel they have the monopoly on the terms "Wedding" and "marriage". I do not subscribe, but I'm married. So I'm curious, according to you am I not married? Was my wedding not a wedding?

Weddings and marriage, even as terms, are not solely owned by those of faith. Once that is understood, maybe some will realize the "separate but equal" argument is offensive to many others, not just LGBT folks.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
I still do not get why those who subscribe to organized religion feel they have the monopoly on the terms "Wedding" and "marriage". I do not subscribe, but I'm married. So I'm curious, according to you am I not married? Was my wedding not a wedding?

Weddings and marriage, even as terms, are not solely owned by those of faith. Once that is understood, maybe some will realize the "separate but equal" argument is offensive to many others, not just LGBT folks.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion. Married is the term we've grown accustomed to - that's not to say the meanings and language can't evolve over time. It can and does happen.

Gay is a prime example! Maybe there will come a time when it simply means happy and joyous again.
 
I am gay for this season of jazz bball.

Am I doing it right moe?
 
babe said:
what he means, Pearl, is that his bigger and older brother usually beat the crap outta him every time he impudently protested the injustice of the unequal ice cream servings his brother helped himself to while mocking and tormenting him.

Many a valiant believer in government has been driven to such irrationality by failed parents who couldn't always dictate absolute justice between siblings, with a resulting appeal to a more immediate higher authority than the God whose only promise is an ultimate escape from this worlds' injustices.

And, of course, believers in social justice in this life have vested themselves in a blind faith that some human authority actually gives a crap about justice, and not a better paycheck and more power for him/her self, a patently false delusion on its face.
Click to expand...

The older guy is usually more physically and financially powerful in every sexual relationship, so if there is an "inherent unequal power structure" between siblings I don't see how that isn't just the norm anyway. Not to mention marriage is about protection of the vulnerable...caregiver and children.
 
Last edited:
PearlWatson said:
Naked protests, reminiscent of homosexual pride parades, over tuition hikes doesn't exactly boost your "point."
Click to expand...

Not everyone thinks nudity is an abomination unto God. Gay marriage hasn't affected Canada negatively in any objective measure. If morality is just some personal arbitrary set of rules (as it seems to be the case for some religious people), then yes, I'm sure you can make the point that everything has a negative effect on everything else.
 
Siro said:
Not everyone thinks nudity is an abomination unto God. Gay marriage hasn't affected Canada negatively in any objective measure. If morality is just some personal arbitrary set of rules (as it seems to be the case for some religious people), then yes, I'm sure you can make the point that everything has a negative effect on everything else.
Click to expand...

What "objective measures" have you been looking at?
 
moevillini said:
Just my opinion. Married is the term we've grown accustomed to - that's not to say the meanings and language can't evolve over time. It can and does happen.

Gay is a prime example! Maybe there will come a time when it simply means happy and joyous again.
Click to expand...

I think marriage has evolved over time, which speaks to your point. Marriage is much more than a religious ceremony and the gateway to procreation. The words marriage and wedding have taken on a new meanings in our society encompassing couples religious and non. No need to alienate those that use that language to describe their union just because they have different beliefs, race, or sexuality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top