I made this thread on Labor Day .. I just couldn’t post it until now since I was on vacation.So…. Happy Labor Day (belated).Part of this weekend included a Bharatanatyam Arangetram. Don’t worry, I can’t pronounce it either. It’s an Hindu rite of passage — a series of very long and intricate dances that are performed to music, which symbolize certain events in Hindu mythology (interestingly, they refer to their religion as “mythology”). It was a beautiful event that was obviously the culmination of several years’ work. IMO, much better than a Bar Mitzvah (which at least I can pronounce).The young performer was besides herself with pride and accomplishment, and the parents glowed. Do Atheists need a rite of passage? What should we do? And.. what if the kid doesn’t want to do it?
“If you were to get married, but have multiple sexual partners, what then defines your marriage?”
For me it would be defined as having an emotionally monagamous partner and most importantly it would grant access to over one thousand special rights that only married couples currently enjoy. Perhaps we should scrap marriage altogether in favour of something else like civil partnerships and open it to any couple that wants to gain these special rights. Why not allow siblings to enter into a civil partnership so that their inheritance automatically goes to the other one in case of death? or allow these two to file joint tax returns? it would be a nonsexual arrangement but a useful one in any case especially for non coupled siblings and would eliminate all of the expensive lawyer fees to accomplish the same thing. Marriage does not have to be sexual in order to be valid and is just a contract between consenting adults.
I also support polygamy but am troubled by the abuse, incest, and welfare fraud that often accompanies it. If only the existing laws against these things were more harshly enforced then who cares if some guy can talk three women into marrying him? Is it really anyone’s business except for those involved???
This is another example of religion forceing it’s ideas of what is right and wrong on everyone.
Alex, Nov. 4 is our Halloween party. More details to follow…
I agree that the state should only provide civil unions and that churches can be free to marry or not marry whoever they please.
On Monogamy – to ‘spanders’:
Yes – there ARE definite advantages that often accrue to married couples. This was *undoubtedly* WHY the Jewish faith and later the X-ians had decreed that ONLY a monogamous man/women relationship was permitted.
To help ENFORCE their desire to keep only male-female monogamous relationships possible (allowable) these relgions stated FALSELY that *only* the man/woman monogamous marriage or coupling was allowed by Gawd.
Now – much later – we’ve got “universal education” (hah hah) rapid communication & birth control as well as condoms and antibiotics to help with the STD problem.
Thus it *ought* to be up to the individual to make his or her choice as to WHICH sex they are going to copulate with, and whether they are going to “marry” – & whether their sexual relations will be monogamous or not.
You can just THROW all the old rules that were created solely by the preists and rabbis OUT the goddam window now. If you pay any attention to the ‘stars’ (and bit players) of the Intertainment Industry – you’re gonna find that nearly NOBODY except for Mel Gibson seems very worried about ‘sexual morality’ in Tinsletown. I believe that is the wave of the future for everyone.
I spoke with a gal in a factory in deepest darkest Southern U.S. She had been living in CA with her hubby. She told me that they moved back to Hillbilly Land only because “everyone in California wanted to screw her” and some were after her hubby’s body. I wanted to laugh – but didn’t.
Had that been years later (the Reagan Era) I could have told her “just say no to fornication”.
The rules defining the “morality” of sexual conduct, as set forth by the Church are INVALID. They were formulated because the Church decided to mislead us all by saying “gawd” was forbidding us to do certain sexual things. That was FALSE – although their motives may have been noble.
If we are NOT stupid enough to believe in Gawd – then we may be smart enough to run our own F-ing lives – provided doing this does *not* violate any laws.
Alex, is there emotion attached to sex for you?
Robguy, I’m not arguing that you can’t have multiple partners or that you can’t be bi, homosexual or heterosexual. Have as much sex as you please (or you could get in my case
However, I think if that’s what you want to do, don’t get married. Let’s look at what you’re saying:
You acknowledge that there are benefits to having a monogomous relationship and go on to say that this is why religion enforces this idea. This, to me, is nurturant morality. So now what do you do with christians who believe that homosexual marriage should be allowed? Does this then diffuse part of your argument?
While I wasn’t alive for it, this seems to be the cause of the sexual revolution in the 60′s. I don’t see that as a bad thing, and I think that sex is a perfectly natural part of life. Having done work for Planned Parenthood (check out http://www.pphsinc.org... I designed and built the site) I know that condoms are prone to problems and misapplication. Your point, I think, is that if we assume protection was perfect and we can take STDs out of the equation. The problem is that protection is not perfect and the AIDS epidemic is frightening in size and has no simple or inexpensive cure if there’s really a cure at all.
This, I think, is a very important point: choice. You are not forced to get married. You can choose to have sex with whoever you want (again, if it works out with them too). You can be bi, straight or gay. My point is that if you choose to get married in a gay or straight relationship, then monogomy goes right along with it. Even now in marriage people can choose to have an open relationship, or more common have affairs and we don’t force them to get divorced by law. However, it is grounds for a divorce as this part of the contract was not upheld. Nobody forces you to get divorced if you have more than one sexual partner, but it’s strongly discouraged and I think that’s appropriate.
First, I don’t normally follow hollywood or pay attention to stars. I think it’s always been the case that those who can afford it have a lot more freedom than those of us constrained by monetary issues. For instance, a star can be a single mom fairly easily as she can afford the help that a mate would have provided. I’m not saying it’s easy to raise a child, but what I am saying is that they can easily afford a vicar so to speak. Wealth allows more freedom and negates the group effort aspect of marriage. Unless all of us have money like the extremely wealthy, pooling resources in a stable contract of marriage will continue to have this issue. It’s not the wave of the future for everyone. We can’t afford it.
I’m a little confused by this. Are you saying they should have stayed in California and she should have screwed everyone and she and her husband would have been happy but for the fucking priests who told them not to? Why didn’t she screw everyone? If she did, would that have been good even if we take religion out of the equation?
Again, what I think you’re saying is that religious people realized it was a good idea to have monogomous marriage and made rules around it. Earlier I made the comparison of strict father morality (which you are objecting to) and nurturant morality. I subscribe to nurturant morality. Marriage and monogomy in marriage is a good idea and should be encouraged, but not forced. You’re not forced to get married and you’re not forced to get divorced even if have multiple sexual partners. It’s really an agreement between you and your wife and if you agree that you’re going to be monogomous and then you’re not, the courts are upholding that agreement. If you agree that you will have an open relationship and you have multiple partners, then you’re not forced to divorce. Since men typically want more partners than women, marriage can empower women by giving legal recourse if men do not fulfill their part of the agreement if they set the agreement up that way. Seems reasonable to me.
I think I’m smart enough to run my own life. Do you think I’m not smart enough to run my own life? Laws are made on ideas and beliefs. I think a better way to say it is that you can live your life without interfering in the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of others. If you agree to get married, agree to be monogomous and then are not, you interfere with pursuit of happiness and the liberty of your partner by breaking that contract.
interestingly, less people are choosing to get married. I think that would be a better argument for you to make. The better argument would be for the automatic legal benefits be applied more liberally. If our laws, policies and budgets were more community oriented, I think you would see even less marriage. The charge towards less marriage has less to do with hollywood and much more to do with economics. Robert Reich made the point that the reason that a lot of poor women choose not to get married is that they don’t have a lot of good partner options who will be good providers. Does this then fly in the face of my pooling resources argument? Somewhat. I think that for middle class people there is more opportunity to pool existing resources from both parties. The poor has less resources to pool and with that comes more scrutiny about partners.
Remy,
This is what Charlee said.
“”I would like to see some evidence that such inclusion and redefinition of “marriage” would be beneficial to children and not a further [detriment].”"
Having thought about the way I worded it, you are right…the point I was trying to make is that, there is substantial evidenc that children are best off being raised with one Father and one Mother. In any other type of parenting formula, the kids don’t do as well.
( I will try to gather the data to support this proposition). I think it is a bit naieve to think that when marriage is defined differently than it has been then, say allowing gays to marry, then it would be hard to argue that other types of relationships wouldn’t be allowed. If marriage were redefined to include any and all who want a commited long-term relationship then I would suggest we redefine the relationship where a man and a woman are committed, not just to each other, but to their offspring and call it something different than marriage. If children aren’t involved, I have no problem defining marriage however you want…and yes this is judging, not prejuding, because I understant the homosexual lifestyle and forces quite well. But, I am also judging any other situation that has been shown detrimental to childraising, where kids are raised by other than one man and one woman.
“” Would the inclusion of different types of relationships beside one heterosexual man and one heterosexual woman be good, bad or no real difference in the effect on the offspring….this is my only question.”"
As mentioned above, the answer seems to be in.
“”You wouldn’t ask this question if you weren’t prejudiced against gays.”"
I’m not against gays…..
but am judging about what is best for kids, based on the evidence.
DVanWechel:
Let’s look a little deeper into “conventionalism” or better known as society determines morality. Martin Luther King would be considered immoral by definition since he would be going against the morals of the society. Those who initially opposed slavery would certainly be immoral. There is no room for moral reformation with conventionalism only moral change. One can’t really say the “new” morality is better or worse. In conventionalism, we could reinstitute slavery tomorrow if the society so decided. There is no room for “moral advancement”, it is only moral change, because the society is defining what is moral….This doesn’t seem to hold up to the way people talk about morality and how abolishment of slavery, and equality of women’s rights were advancements. One has no claim to this kind of statement if morals are man-made or society-made. Once cannot justify saying we are a “better” society now, because we have abolished slavery and made women equal. All one can say is that the morality on these issues changed, and tommorrow they may change back. The problem is that when we talk about such moral issues and problems, we seem to be referring to a standard outside the individual or society. My question is how can that be when there no moral reference points outside society.
charlee,
Horrible parents are horrible parents regardless of their sexual activities.
I am not aware of any research that indicates a man/woman parenting is better. It would indeed be difficult to study gay families. I would guess that their kids suffer, not due to the fact of their parents arrangement but because of the suspicion and prejudice inherent in this Judeo/Christin culture. It wasn’t that long ago that people and their children were ridiculed for being “out of wedlock” (in fact it still exists).
Just what is it that you are afraid of? Either you accept that people are people, flawed or inspired, or you believe gays are bad and are therefore liable to injure their children.
charlee,
I don’t think that this is the case, though I’d be interested to see any data you can find supporting your statement. Some links to studies that suggest that children raised in same-sex parent households are comparable to those raised in different-sex parent households:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/12/health/webmd/main938234.shtml
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_by_same-sex_couples
charlee, is this what you?re looking for?
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgplgparents.html
Charlee,
I completely disagree. I’ll explain why…
First, the concept that there can be no “moral advancement” is true ? sort of. That’s because moral advancement, in many cases, is utterly subjective. Moral change is not. One might believe that a moral advancement would be to restrict homosexuals from from getting married. I would disagree.
And you’re absolutely correct when you say we could ?…reverse slavery tomorrow?. I suspect there are those in this country who might see that as moral advancement. I believe one of Hitler?s goals, once he conquered the world, was to do just that. And at the time, many in Germany would have had no moral objection to it, just as they didn?t to the concept of a superior race.
My point is that moral advancement has nothing to with how society decides what versions of morality to accept. You and I, individually, decide if a particular moral change constitutes moral advancement. History does as well. You and I might agree on some, and not on others. Either way, that point doesn’t change the fact that societies decide on what versions of morality are tolerated and/or encouraged.
“Once cannot justify saying we are a “better” society now, because we have abolished slavery and made women equal. All one can say is that the morality on these issues changed, and tomorrow they may change back.”
I disagree. To further my above point, ask black America if our society is better having abolished slavery. Ask women in America if they believe attaining their right to vote was a moral advancement, and not just an arbitrary moral change. They absolutely can justify their answer (which I’m guessing it would be yes, on both counts).
“The problem is that when we talk about such moral issues and problems, we seem to be referring to a standard outside the individual or society. My question is how can that be when there no moral reference points outside society.”
No. I, at least, am not referring to a standard set outside the individual or society. I like to compare moral evolution to DNA. Overtime genes are built upon, or “deactivated”, or mutated. The same is true for morality. I believe that morality likely started simply, just as we did. And as we became more complex, socially, so did how we constructed our morality to better help us survive within social groups. Our morality will continue to evolve as as our societies grow more complex. You don’t need an outside reference point – it’s unnecessary.
Spanders,
Sex for me can and usually is easily detached from emotion but the one man that I have ever loved made the sex better somehow but it wasn’t so much better that sex without love is meaningless to me-it’s not. I think that all men, gay and straight, have an easier time of keeping love and sex apart and for most women the emotional aspects of sex are foremost. Men and women are different in that way.
Also I do believe that at this point that gay parents are not only equal to most straight parents but are actually better. Most gay couples have a harder time in acquiring children than straight couples and there is not much risk of a gay couple bringing an unplanned child into the world. Kids of gay parents are some of the most loved and planned for kids that there are.
Oh spanders!
You sonovabean! (metaphorically speaking). Merely to *attempt* to answer you arguments would take me all night. I will attempt to counter only ONE or at most TWO of your pithy comments.
You asked (disingenuously I thought) “what do (I) do about the Cristians who are *for* homosexual marriage – does that (fact) tend to difuse your argument?” (paraphrased)
My reply: Of course it doesn’t difuse of disarm my argument(s)!
There is a NEW kind of Xianity that’s emerging now. American Xians are now MUCH less likely to accept the #&%$ nonsense which they always sucked-up in the past as “loyal followers” of the Church’s teachings.
Now we have woman preachers and pastors, and in one place in the Northeast (MASS?) we also have a gay ‘episcopal’ bishop now I believe.
Thus the Xians are slowly gravitating away fron the old model, which was for all silly X-ian worshippers to “kiss the Pope’s ring” (or similar act of fealty) and follow EVERY bit of ‘advice’ and/or “papal bull” the fraudulent booger, et al, handed out.
The *error* of the Church was that it STATED all of its decrees were received fron “Gawd”. This was ALWAYS a total lie – probably a falsehood that a good many of the clergy fell for also. So ALL of X-ian teaching is REALLY founded on the LIE there “is a God” and that god has spoken to Man.
The Church merely *fabricated* the things they wanted to “faithful” to do – or invented the regulations they wanted their flocks to follow. Then comes this major LIE that the “Word” was dictated by Gawd in heaven.
Thus, regardless of how “useful” or how very “beneficial” the Church regulations were or are – those rules and LAWS were spread FALSELY as having been dictated from Above by an ABSOLUTE Creator whose wishes defined this whole Universe.
After my having laborously puzzled out this F-ing weirdo mystery (the gigantic LIE) can you actually BLAME my for saying I have nothing but pure LOATHING for the entire goddam LYING X-ain religion and its adherants?
I must be CRAZY for ‘reasoning’ with a dedicated X-ain. They hide their ‘reasoning’ ability well while they extole X-ianity. I assume the smart one like you are schitzophernic (spell?)
spanders:
For years I had wondered how it could be possible that the human race could accept the *Scientific Impossiblity* that a god exists.
That fooled me – because I had trouble believing that the WHOLE species could actually be hoodwinked in that manner. But after a while I did some research into cognitive ability – and the distribution of intelligent qoutient values among humans.
The result is that humans, on average, are a *very* stupid breed, which DOES clearly explain why so many of them are deceived into accepting ANY reigion as based on REAL facts.
Further, the fact of the general pervasive stupidity of people also explains why the U.S. has now expended about $450 billion on the idiotic invasion of Iraq.
In point of fact, Iraq was never a real concern for the U.S. to worry over – after the (first) Gulf War.
The very existance of Iraq under a powerful Shiite dictator had greatly limited the overall ambitions of the Sunnis contolling Iran.
Now we have an Iran confidently tossing caution to the wind – because the Washington regime has graphically proven it is too inept to unleash the U.S. military machine so it can win the war in Iraq.
Maybe this is the fault of the Chistian right wingers – who were instrumental in getting the GWB dummie elected TWICE.
robguy:
& which race spent the money on this stupidity?
WHITE PEOPLE.
& the majority race that did this?
WHITE PEOPLE.
All of whom, I might add, probably score very highly on your precious IQ tests.
Krystalline Apostate:
Hee hee, good one! I don’t want to get back into the whole racial arguements that were spewed out a few days ago (I admit though–I couldn’t sleep for thinking of extremely witty comebacks to the Bell Curvers, et al.)
Re: gay marriage. By gawd, why would anyone care if gays marry? Is there a disadvantage to society in general that isn’t balanced or outweighed by the individual/personal advantages that these people would derive?
I’m not a libertarian (my god, please don’t make that assumption!) but isn’t personal freedom in this issue more important than the disapproval of society? My gawd–we’re talking about people’s personal lives, fates and happiness (and potential unhappiness). It’s none of the government’s business.
I can think of too many societal negatives, but here goes: Less taxes collected since married folk pay less? Companies paying out more in joint health insurance policies? Lots more awkward wedding parties and difficulty in addressing envelopes? (Dear Mr. and Mr…)
Hmmm can’t think of too much more..
Positives–Many more weddings will help service economy (florists, caterers, even preachers!) Happiness? More children being adopted from foster care by more eligible two parent families? Gay men and women who want to stay in the U.S. (because we are, if you can believe it, more liberal about gay issues than a lot of places) will be able to marry their lovers and stay legally (I have a friend with a boyfriend on a student visa, so this is an issue dear to my heart).
I could go on and on but come on already!
Lastly, I’m a single straight woman who is adopting a child (about 3/4 through the process). According to some of the posters, this is just wrong because I won’t have that man by my side. Sorry, but fukc you!
You’d probably rather have her live in a country where the literacy rate is 55%, the birth rate is 5X the U.S.’s, infant mortality is 44 out of 1000 and (obviously) health care is difficult to access.
Sheesh!
Betelnut:
Hey, I’m a big defender of gay marriage.
There’s only 1 word for people against it:
Bigot.
Thank your lucky stars you’re not in Oaklahoma.
They have a certificate of gestation. Short version: only married couples can have children.
This ’1 man/1 woman’ paradigm wasn’t enforced until the xtians took over. History shows it.
I’m thankful not to be in OK for lots more reasons than that. Seriously, how can you tolerate a place like that? or KS? I mean-DAMN!
robguy
Why did you think I asked the disingenuously? The church I go to in Raleigh does endorse gay marriage, has openly gay couples and openly gay ministers.
It could be argued that the pendulum of strict father morality and progressive morality in the church has swung back and forth, but you are correct that strict father morality has won out for the most part due to its nature. I read a fascinating book on the Nicene Creed and the fierce and violent political battle that was fought to define christianity. In the end, strict father moralists beat out the other “heretics”. Once again I think you’re seeing a battle over christianity as the fundamentalists are on one side, progressives on the other. Fundamentalists fight to define strict father morality and understand freedom much differently than progressives who are fighting for nurturant morality and whose definition of freedom is much closer to what I think your definition would be.
So are you saying that you object to people following these rules or do you object them being forced on you? I object to them being forced on you. I prefer to have a reasoned debate assessing pros and cons of laws before passing them. Is everything I think null and void because I believe in god?
So are you saying that you loath me? I don’t loath you. I don’t want to force rules on you. I don’t think I’ve tried to convert you. I haven’t condemned you. I’m not blaming you for anything that I know of. Can you point out where I’m blaming you? I’m trying to discuss the nature of marriage and I think this conversation helps me think out some of the ideas I have and I appreciate having the conversation with you. I thought the point of monogomy was interesting to consider. I think I ended up thinking that while I think it’s a good idea, it doesn’t need to be enforced as long as both partners are cool with it. If partners have different ideas about it, then even from a pragmatic point of view, don’t get married.
I’ve heard right wing fundamentalist christians say the same thing about having conversations with atheists and/or liberals for extoling their values. I value a pluralistic society where dialog is encouraged for greater understanding. Maybe that’s because I’m schizophrenic
Betelnut,
Tempting me with the thought of witty comments yet not providing them? You tease! ;P
Well, people like to say there is. Then, when they are presented with evidence to the contrary, they tend to ignore it and run off and make the same arguments later. Like KA said: it?s bigotry. It?s also as frustrating as hell, whatever the issue.
No, atheists should not have a rite of passage. If there was one, atheists might as well be a xian group. Even if there was a rite, my kids would be given the choice to particiapte.
the needs of the state out weigh the needs of the individual.china had a good system where the party official
at your workplace would assign you a spouse.people need sex and marriage
but it should be strictly regulated
to achieve state goals like stability.
state gov’ts should enforce laws against adultry,cohabitation,fornication.this
would reduce stds,unwanted babies like it or not people are like cattle and must be herded.
Hey Unreasonable,
What about the tax payers that whack their meat thinking about what ever excites their imagination….should we put those horny peckers behind bars too
I know….we could start another needless governmental agency that will monitor each individual’s erection so we could police up the unmarried horny…..perhaps a cock ring would suffice
charlie an agency like the miss.state
sovereignty commission could get the job done at little cost to taxpayers.
you idealist have got to accept the
fact that most people are stupid and
immoral and must be kept under tight
control for their own good.
I would like to see idea of whats moral and immoral…..On second thought….I would rather not know.
I would guess your for slavery too
Your commission sounds very scary too me
charlie what i think is immoral is the rampant abuse and neglect of children in our society.these kind of laws where put in place to address problems like unwanted pregancies/stds.we regulate driving a car so what is so wrong with regulating sex an marriage in both cases we are trying to protect people.i do value your opinion i find
it interesting what we think should be the role of law in society.
Reason….Life can be very cruel….many innocent get F’d every second…..Do I like it…of course not…..Is the solution “Strict Government Control” no way……Way too much room for corruption….I don not want someone telling me how to live based on a what they think is right for me….I do not want to be a sheeple…..I do not want to give most of my earnings to a bunch of cronies….I pay too much in taxes now and your way of thinking will lead to more taxes and government telling me when I can shit…..are you an atheist?
yes charlie i am an atheist i understand where you are coming from but we already have high taxes and the gov’t telling us what to do.i look at history and see the gov’t has done good things like public schools,mental hospitals, paved highways.therefore i think gov’t can play a useful role in preventing unwanted babies,stds,child abuse.