marriage

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Spock

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Youl've been reading those little red books too much LCOU[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]

psst! yer tags are showing!

little red books aside, it happens to be the proven factors for marriage
hence tax benefits (in UK) for married couples, and so on. i refer the honourable gentleman to the response given in the above post from lotesse

[Spock]

to quote Poo "we is not them"

[Spock]

[QUOTE=Last Child of Ungoliant]psst! yer tags are showing!

yeah I couldn't get rid of them so I re did the post

I saw your reply above but differed in my interpretation thats all.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Spock

to quote Poo "we is not them"

tahat's as well may be, but those cultures are not allowed to practice said practices outside of their countries, and tibetans are not allowed to in their country (dont get me started on chinese occupation of tibet ) due to foreign, and often western values being imposed upon them - but to get back to the sexualist point again,

and the gold medal for question evading goes to....

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

ah yes, here we have another reason for the destruction of the traditional marriage as it is seen by society, the fact that marriage exists for the following reasons
1. social control by the ruling classes
2. creating a new generation of subservient workers, to ensure the success of capitalist economy
3.perpetuating the current system

I beg to disagree

I think marriage exists because God established it as a blessing for a man and a woman, as a foundational structure of the family and society in accordance with our nature and for our good, and as a picture of the love and closeness that God desires with people (in the Bible, marriage is used as a picture of this). Even secular studies show that the best possible thing for children is to have a mother and father in a committed relationship. And secular studies also show that married people are healthier than singles. Marriage sure seems to be something that's good for us - we're designed for it, IMO.

I don't see how marriage promotes your #2, Chrys - seems like people are gonna have kids whether they're married or not! And as for your #3 - if the current system works well, why not perpetuate it? IMO, that reflects the common error of change necessarily equals good, which is clearly untrue.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I beg to disagree

i wouldnt expect, or want, you to agree - it would be a very dull place if we all agreed, all the time

I think marriage exists because God established it as a blessing, as a foundational structure of the family and society in accordance with our nature and for our good, and as a picture of the love and closeness that God desires with people (in the Bible, marriage is used as a picture of this).

and i agree that your beliefs would define it as such, and i am happy that you are free to stand up for your beliefs without feeling the need to impose them on others

Even secular studies show that the best possible thing for children is to have a mother and father in a committed relationship.

well, in that case, why even bother to legalise adoption by homosexuals?

I don't see how marriage promotes your #2, Chrys - seems like people are gonna have kids whether they're married or not!

which also proves that marriage does not work, and should be removed as a state or religious sponsored union, and be returned to the natural state of private unionisation

And as for your #3 - if the current system works well, why not perpetuate it? IMO, that reflects the common error of change necessarily equals good, which is clearly untrue.

does the system work? it is not clear that it does, the most evidence points to it not working

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

tahat's as well may be, but those cultures are not allowed to practice said practices outside of their countries, and tibetans are not allowed to in their country (dont get me started on chinese occupation of tibet ) due to foreign, and often western values being imposed upon them - but to get back to the sexualist point again,

and the gold medal for question evading goes to....

Actually I've been a long standing member of ICT and support them in every way I can.

I don't get your using "sexualist" as a rational argument, but then, hey, we are coming from different cultures ourselves. So we can agree to disagree, yes?

[Spock]

[QUOTE=RÃ*an]I beg to disagree

I think marriage exists because God established it as a blessing for a man and a woman,

Actually marriage was created by The Church, people "coupled" and lived together in various cultures before TC came up with the sacrament of marriage.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

NO!! i will NOT agree on this matter [j/k]

of course uk and usa are two of the most centrally aligned cultures, whilst at the same time being so ultimately diametrically opposed, which in itself creates a pardoxical parallax!

[Spock]

I thought you were against the use of large words oh, maybe I'm confused

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

Actually marriage was created by The Church, people "coupled" and lived together in various cultures before TC came up with the sacrament of marriage.

I disagree

Perhaps the NAME was created by the church, but not the concept. However, the concept was, IMO, created by the founder of the church...

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I disagree

Perhaps the NAME was created by the church, but not the concept. However, the concept was, IMO, created by the founder of the church...

the pope? [j/k]

[Spock]

But if the concept existed before the name given by TC then the current definition is arbitrary by historical standards. As we are supposed to be a nation of laws, the law should be kept and if necessary a new name given for unions other than the current definition of marriage. IMO

there was marriage under Druidic law and that certainly was pre-christian

[Lotesse]

One definition of marriage is the entering into of a contract between two people, wherein they each pledge to the other to be allied AS ONE through thick and thin, etc., it is a legally binding contract which may not be broken without due consequence. But the LAW sanctions the contract, the law AND the church; it is a contract made binding by outside forces. It's as if the two people to be joined cannot bring themselves respectively to trust the other, outright, without bringing in a powerful third party to "O.K." and make binding said contract.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

One definition of marriage is the entering into of a contract between two people, wherein they each pledge to the other to be allied AS ONE through thick and thin, etc., it is a legally binding contract which may not be broken without due consequence. But the LAW sanctions the contract, the law AND the church; it is a contract made binding by outside forces. It's as if the two people to be joined cannot bring themselves respectively to trust the other, outright, without bringing in a powerful third party to "O.K." and make binding said contract.

very good point there, lotesse

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

But if the concept existed before the name given by TC then the current definition is arbitrary by historical standards.

why? A man and a woman binding themselves together and having children (usually) has existed for thousands of years - why does the name matter?

Originally Posted by Lotesse

It's as if the two people to be joined cannot bring themselves respectively to trust the other, outright, without bringing in a powerful third party to "O.K." and make binding said contract.

My vow was to God and my husband, period.
Now my society, in its wisdom, recognizes the value of marriage, and has granted privileges to those that enter into it, and made it somewhat difficult to get out of, traditionally to protect women and children. But to me, that's secondary, or even irrelevant.

(and one reason that marriage laws were codified, at least in Christianity (the Old Testament), was to protect women. Many pagan cultures had a very low view of women; one of the reasons that I'm impressed with the timelessness of the Bible is that it goes against the culture of the times in regard to women. The OT divorce laws protected women against a common practice of divorce for any reason whatsoever, which in those times could really devastate a woman.)

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think marriage exists because God established it as a blessing for a man and a woman

That can't possibly be because:
1. on one hand marriage existed well before the Jews invented the idea of "one god"
2. on the other hand there is no such thing as "one marriage throughout time and space". Many different institutions have been called marriage

[Spock]

But marriage IS as it always has been and the definition should not be changed merely to make certain people feel more accepted. The insurance and benefits people need to accept civil union as do those seeking them.

and while many institutions have been around, they all had the same arranged two sex concept.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by spock

and while many institutions have been around, they all had the same arranged two sex concept.

actually, no they haven't

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

ah yes, here we have another reason for the destruction of the traditional marriage as it is seen by society, the fact that marriage exists for the following reasons
1. social control by the ruling classes
2. creating a new generation of subservient workers, to ensure the success of capitalist economy
3.perpetuating the current system

You do realise that marriage pre-dates capitalism, don't you? And that people get married in non-capitalist economies?

Not to mention that social control by the ruling classes (whoever you think they are) would be a lot easier if there were legal sanctions against people who don't get married, who break their marriage vows, who have children outside marriage etc. There is no such legal stigma and no social one any more. How exactly are the ruling classes forcing people to get married?

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

little red books aside, it happens to be the proven factors for marriage hence tax benefits (in UK) for married couples, and so on.

One reason that the benefits system favours married couples (in some cases - not in Child Benefit, for example) is that a marriage can be proved. In your scenario of marriage being "removed as a state or religious sponsored union, and returned to the natural state of private unionisation", how would a couple prove their entitlement to benefits if their "unionisation" hasn't been officially recognised?