Author Topic: One man and one woman  (Read 9107 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #87 on: April 14, 2013, 09:35:30 PM »
This thread will have to do without me now for a few days at least.

But I will return. Still thoroughly enjoyable discussion.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #88 on: April 14, 2013, 09:40:02 PM »
Not what I am saying at all. There is agreement and dis-agreement, sure, but there is a very sound methodology which can be used to aid understanding.

Feel free to disagree with the way I and others interpret the bible, but explain why you disagree.
Well, what you are saying is impossible unless you purposely interpret the bible wrong. If there is a sound methodology to interpret and understand the bible, then there is no reason to be getting it wrong, unless you do so on purpose. Also the only way to know whether there is a method is to actually know the method... if you dont know the method, theres no way you can know there is one.

Since you claim to know there is one, what is it? this should clear up a bunch of stuff and bring all of the sects together... now that you will have revealed the correct way to read the bible.

lets start small. Did you read my post in the other thread concerning the supposed commandement for me to kill non-believers? Has your understanding of it been changed at all? Agree or disagree?

Theres a correct way to interpret my post. You have to take it in context.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #89 on: April 14, 2013, 10:12:05 PM »
Not in my view, no. Both are sad. I think we might finally have achieved clarity here.

Except that you can't even say which is worse.  Which *I* find sad.  Presence of betrayal, vs absence of betrayal.  Presence of dishonesty vs absence of dishonesty.  Can't figure out which is worse.  I guess it's typical of Christian morality not to be particularly concerned about dishonesty, in relationships or otherwise, but still...

Should we extend this principle to contract law, such that if both parties agree to change the terms of the contract, they're both considered to be legally in breach of contract?

You're moving the goalposts by bringing the assignation of blame into it. I haven't suggested that a non-willing participant of an extra-marital affair is guilty of anything.

So the one who betrays his or her spouse and has an affair behind their back isn't to blame?  Good to know.  I guess that makes sense it's just the sex itself that's the problem, though...but didn't you say that wasn't the case?

Anyway, you don't seem to have understood what I was saying at all.  I'll try again.  If the one who breaks a marriage by having a clandestine affair is guilty of doing so, and if - as you characterized it - a mutual decision to allow such things is similar in that respect, then both parties are guilty of the same thing:  Breaking the marriage agreement.  I'm just asking you whether this principle is an ad-hoc thing that you only apply in the case of marriages, or whether you think it should apply to contract law as well.  Makes sense to be consistent, right?

Of course it's more than sex, but they're very closely linked.

So, you can't imagine loving someone as a partner while not being restricted to them sexually.  Love and sex are indeed very closely tied for you.  I used to feel that way, from my teens to early 20's.  Then I got into a relationship that lasted years, and we developed a bond more tied to who we are and what we value about each other than about what we did with our genitals.  Maybe you'll have that kind of love sometime too.

"Bigot' is a really pointless, generic insult, in my view. It can be levelled at anyone who doesn't agree with you.

"You and your ilk sicken me" is similar in that respect, except that it justifies the charge of bigotry.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1396
  • Darwins +103/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #90 on: April 15, 2013, 05:39:34 AM »
- a mutual decision to allow such things is similar in that respect, then both parties are guilty of the same thing:  Breaking the marriage agreement.  I'm just asking you whether this principle is an ad-hoc thing that you only apply in the case of marriages, or whether you think it should apply to contract law as well.  Makes sense to be consistent, right?

Not really, marriage is not a contract in that respect see; R v R [1992] 1 A.C. 599, House of Lords.
This case is about marital rape but the "marital contract" is discussed in obiter.

People don't get divorced because of a broken agreement they get divorced because of irreconcilable differences that may be evidenced by adultery, abandonment etc...

Also, in contract law if both parties agree to a change in the contract neither is in breach see - battle of the forms etc.

Just sayin :)

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #91 on: April 15, 2013, 11:15:30 AM »
In my opinion the whole one man, one woman marriage concept advocated by Christendom is somewhat foreign to the Biblical texts. Polygamy was openly practiced by the patriachs virtually throughout the OT texts (Jacob, the father of Israel, GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE exemplifies this). If one looks at the marriage/divorce/adultury texts carefully, what becomes more and more apparent is the idea that the marital rights belonged primarily to the husband, NOT the wives. Husbands were allowed to put away/divorce their wives in the Bible in both the old and new testaments, but I am aware of no text that allowed the wife to do the same. Adultury was seemingly described as being sexually involved with another man's wife (aka uncovering his nakedness), not sleeping with a woman's husband (see Proverbs 7 & 8).

Even God Himself is said to have metaphorically had multiple wives that He in turned divorced according to the OT scriptures (Jeremiah 3).

As far as marriage equality goes, no such concept exists scripturally. According to the scriptures homosexuality was to be despised and the thought of a homosexual union by God (aka Christian marriage) is a foreign concept. In fact, certain qualifications had to be meet in order for one to even get married. A divorced person oftentimes was banned from getting remarried. One was restricted from marrying a previous spouse if the wife had gotten remarried after initally being sent away by that previous spouse. Married outside of the Hebrew race was often frowned upon as well.

----------

At times it's funny to me that marriage equality is even the issue. F' marriage, what is more important is making sure that individuals who mutually agree to be together as a unit whether it's a man and a woman, 3 men and a woman, one man and 5 women, or 2 people of the same sex are not denied the medical, property, and such rights that are afforded to the married. Marriage in many ways is an archiac institution that best suits a patriachial relationship designed to produce and nurture offspring that will continue the name and traditions of the patriach.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #92 on: April 15, 2013, 11:45:29 AM »
MrJason, you're right.  But that was kind of why I brought it up, as an absurdity that follows mm's treatment of marriage as an agreement/commitment above all else.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #93 on: April 15, 2013, 12:26:06 PM »
At first blush, yes. It's a completely understandable default reaction based on where and when we live, but based also (amd most importantly) on the belief that we can determine what is good and bad without deferring to any absolute moral authority.

Miles, you are going to run into problems with "absolute moral authority" on every side.
1. your absolute moral authortiy failed to include prohibition against some very basic things like slavery and rape. Or are you saying those things are okay?

2. the Euthyphro dilemmaWiki.  Is it moral because god says so?  Or is it moral because god is moral? It's a real conundrum.  That I know of, no theologian has actually thought his way out of the problem.

3. according to your mythology, we attained moral knowledge equal to yhwh when Eve at the fruit.


What is moral, though?

Well, for starters, not owning people, not commiting genocide, not murdering your only child on the say so of some alleged deity. How's that for a start?

And you're viewing Him incompletely, as someone whose actions can somehow be legitimately challenged by a creature it created.

I've not seen any good reasons as to why we should not be able to apply morality to god.  If he's good, what's he afraid of?  What are you afraid of?  You may say we cannot - lots of xians try to do that.  But so what?  Give me a good reason.   

It portrays God as being utterly and completely incapable of co-exisiting with sin.

I know you think you are saying something relevant, but you aren't.  It is a slogan that you've not put any thought into.  For starters, the serpent, who you guys say is the Devil, was in the garden at the beginning.  What up with that?  Is yhwh omnipresent or not? 

And if it is true that yhwh is incapabale of co-existing with sin, does that mean yhwh is powerless against it?  I've not been to confession in about 25 years.  I am loaded up with sin.  Absolutely filthy with it.  Could I ward off yhwh by walking into a church?  Could I prevent the holy spirit from entering the host by standing too closely?

I guess nothing is impossible, theoretically. But my experience has always been that experience kicks theory's bum every day of the week. My experience is that God is good.

1. lots of things are theoretically impossible. Bootstrap levitation and perpetual motion are both theoretically impossible.  You eating your own head is theoretically impossible.  An evil god is as plausible as a good god.

2. That's not the point.  Your argument was god created all life and thus we could not suggest god was wrong.  Never mind that your conclusion is in no way connected the premise.  If god is evil - as is possible -  then what?  Are we still unable to point that out just because he created us?

3. I sincerely doubt you have any direct experience with god or his goodness.  Examples, please.


The God of the bible set those natural laws you like into motion.

So you say.  But where's the meat?

They did eat of it, and it did bring death and knowledge, but that doesn't mean mankind were suddenly equal with God.

It did not bring death.  yhwh brought death.  And it did give them the same ability as yhwh and the other gods in terms of moral discernment.  yhwh even says so:
Quote from: gen3:22
Then the Lord God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil;

How is knowing good and evil a bad thing?  Why would yhwh want to keep us from it?  Would a good god or an evil god prefer our ignorance on the matter?

It had the opposite effect, removing us from God.

No.  None of the ill effects were from the fruit.  They were from yhwh.
Quote from:  gen3:16
To the woman he said,“I will greatly ..."

If it worked the way you seem to say, yhwh would not have been able to lecture them before they were automatically ejected from the Garden.  He'd have had to send a letter explaining how cross he was.  Instead, he had time to sew a bunch of clothes for them. 

Your book and your ideas are incompatible.

That was the lie Satan fed them

First of all, it was the serpent, not satan.  Secondly, show exactly what the serpent said that was untrue.

that was swallowed hook, line and sinker. It's his most successful lie, been working ever since.


Through Christ God demonstrated He has authority over not just sentinent creatures, but over death itself. The case is made to my satisfaction, not to yours.....we know this.

That is just restating the claim.  If a tautology is the extent of your case, then you might want to rethink the conclusion.   

God sees us as valuable. He chose to create humanity. That's the only way or reason our lives have intrinsic value. 

In your eagerness to repeat a Happy Xian Platitude, you missed the point I brought up. 

If morality is real, then it applies to everyone, even god.

Maybe the theoretical God you have in mind. Not the God of the bible.

yeesh.  It is statements like that that make me fearful of xians.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #94 on: April 15, 2013, 04:28:35 PM »

"You and your ilk sicken me" is similar in that respect, except that it justifies the charge of bigotry.

I have just enough time this morning to highlight this charming example of twisting someone's words into something that wasn't said.

What did I say?


It sickens me and it saddens me that it doesn't sicken everyone.

And I said that in respect of wedding vows which incorporate a "have sex with others" section.  The idea of that does indeed sicken me. But I did not make any such statement as you try to saddle me with.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #95 on: April 15, 2013, 04:48:15 PM »
It sickens you that it doesn't sicken everyone.  It doesn't sicken me.  Therefore, I am one of the ones who sickens you.  It doesn't sicken a lot of people I know and care about.  Therefore, they sicken you, too.

Me and my ilk.  We sicken you.  Because you're bigot.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #96 on: April 15, 2013, 05:08:51 PM »
It sickens you that it doesn't sicken everyone.  It doesn't sicken me.  Therefore, I am one of the ones who sickens you.  It doesn't sicken a lot of people I know and care about.  Therefore, they sicken you, too.

Me and my ilk.  We sicken you.  Because you're bigot.

Wow, you've done it again. It saddens me that not everyone feels sick at the thought of such a thing. Saddens me. Not sickens. I find it sad that you consider such a wedding ceremony to be OK.

Am I a bigot for feeling sad, Azdgari?

Edit to add: Looking at the punctuation of my sentence, it is possible to construe it as saying that I am sickened by people who don't find it sickening.  I should have used a comma. So I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt.

Seeya for now.


« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 05:24:29 PM by magicmiles »
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #97 on: April 15, 2013, 05:53:48 PM »
Alright.  I did read it as you being sickened by all those who would not be likewise sickened by a marriage that isn't sexually binding.  No, you're not a bigot for feeling sad when your views aren't shared.

What do you think justifies the "sickened" feeling in the first place?  Just having the word "marriage" applied to the situation?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Traveler

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Darwins +142/-2
  • Gender: Female
  • no god required
    • I am a Forum Guide
    • Gryffin Designs
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #98 on: April 15, 2013, 06:37:31 PM »
What happens between consenting adults, in the privacy of their home, is none of our business. I don't understand why anyone thinks otherwise.

If you don't want legal marriage rights attached to groups larger than two at a time, then we'll just have to see what happens ... It'll be very interesting to see over the next few decades how that plays out. But to say that open, honest relationships, where all parties are aware, informed, and consenting, shouldn't be allowed at all, does speak to your own personal prejudices. Its none of our business. Not yours, not mine.
If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1907
  • Darwins +198/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #99 on: April 15, 2013, 07:00:57 PM »
A friend of mine posted this recently on Facebook (proving to me that FB isn't a complete waste): http://nursingclio.org/2013/04/02/same-sex-marriage-does-threaten-traditional-marriage/

The article addresses what the writer believes is the root of the problem. It's framed in a way I hadn't considered, but it makes perfect sense in light of such movements as Quiverfull families and the like.

Those people really freak me right the hell out, BTW. Libby Anne's blog on Patheos has been very enlightening for anyone interested in more about that: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #100 on: April 15, 2013, 07:22:01 PM »
First of all, I would like to apologize for not having responded sooner, and I would like to thank you MM, for responding to my post so thoroughly in posts 59 and 60. 

I have to say, it appears that we both see the world through a very different set of filters. 


Because it can be, for so many people. You'd have to agree that the amount of suffering in this world of a sexual nature is huge. But what causes the suffering? That's a very big question, one I doubt we could ever resolve on an internet forum. Sadly, some of the suffering is caused by folk who use the bible to make homosexuals feel like they alone are sinners. I hate that it happens, because we're all sinners according to the bible. (that we all do wrong I won't get an argument on, but I know you'll all hate hearing it called sin).

I just can't agree that it is the sex that causes the suffering.  I think some people feel guilt and suffering because they think that their sexual nature or sexual actions are "bad" or "sinful."  I blame religion for that.  But I think the more serious pain associated with sex has to do with power imbalances and exploitation, rather than the sexual act.  Rape, forced marriage, pedophilia, are examples of sex as power over, or exploitation. 

Sex has also been used as a currency throughout human history. It has be exchanged for money or food or protection or promotions or even in exchange for apprenticeships and training.  Usually the person with the money or power or food or strength or ability to promote or teach is the one who wants the sex, and the person who offers the sex in exchange for these services or commodities would not engage in the sexual act with the other person if there were not something being offered that she or he needs. 

Sexual attractiveness is also tied up with a person's self image and ego and physical being, and also with perceptions of youth.  People want to be good at sex.  Young people, whose bodies have not yet discovered the rhythms or ways to touch someone else's body, might feel inadequate.  Older people, whose bodies have endured the tolls of time, might have health issues that impact on sexual activities.  Some people seek sex to boost their own egos.  Others consider sexual conquest a game to be won. 

And then there are more complex issues.  Sex is both a simple biological act, that fulfills a natural desire, and it is also an expression of intimacy.  When two people engage in sex together for different reasons (one, just for the physical sensation, and the other to build intimacy) there can be feelings of pain or deception or even betrayal, because of different expectations. 

Vows of fidelity are meant to both symbolize and nurture that intimacy. And intimacy is hard.  There are so many other issues competing with any given relationship, ranging from money to life goals to disappointments to perceptions that the other person is not fulfilling his or her share of the household responsibilities. Different philosophies on child rearing can create a rift in a relationship, and perceptions that a partner is not working hard enough, or is working too hard, or is paying to much attention to extended family, or not enough, can all decrease feelings of intimacy.  Stress and busy schedules also take a toll on healthy sexual and intimate relationships.  Sometimes, the qualities that made the person attractive in the first place change.  The person's body changes, the person's aura of mystery or success or fade.  Or seeing a partner in the routines of daily life take away some of the magic that existed early in the relationship, and other people, who are only seen in appealing contexts become more desirable.  Or maybe someone was just not hardwired for monogamy, but tried to fit in to the societal standards, perhaps unsuccessfully.  When vows of fidelity are broken, trust is violated and there is a great deal of pain. 

So yeah.  I guess there is a lot of human suffering around sex.  But as I look at each example of human suffering related to sex, I can't help but believe that the pain is about the sex.  I think the pain is about exploitation, power imbalances, arrogance, weakness, lies, deceptions, violations of trust.  Most of those are sins in your book too, aren't they?  I would consider those to be the problems.  Not the sex.

And then different expectations about intimacy, and fading intimacy, and changing self image, and changing bodies and aging and acknowledging mortality and all that stuff that is so intertwined with the human condition.  But sex just holds up a mirror to those realities. 

And then there is the pain of guilt, that has nothing to do with any of the other issues.  The guilt I blame on religion. 

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #101 on: April 15, 2013, 11:59:23 PM »
Quesi - I agree with most of that. Almost all of it. I'll have more time in a few days to give some longer responses.

Just quickly - I really, truly am mystified how I am being accused of focusing on the sexual act itself. I have tried to explain that the act is just about impossible to remove from so many other things, same as you just did.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #102 on: April 16, 2013, 12:13:53 AM »
What happens between consenting adults, in the privacy of their home, is none of our business. I don't understand why anyone thinks otherwise.

I agree. Surprised? But that doesn't preclude me from holding an opinion on what the bible teaches.

Trust me, I have zero interest in having consenting adult sexual behaviour outlawed.


But to say that open, honest relationships, where all parties are aware, informed, and consenting, shouldn't be allowed at all, does speak to your own personal prejudices.

I have never said that. I don't think that at all. I'm just not sure they should be called marriages, but even that I'm still thinking hard about. I wanted some sort of clear cut idea of what marriage actually is according to the state, but that seems quite complicated.


Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1907
  • Darwins +198/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #103 on: April 16, 2013, 12:46:30 AM »
At some point, we should discuss the differences between marriages, weddings, and civil unions.

It's quite late so I'll just start with this: marriages are the legal contract (governed by the State here in the US), weddings are the ceremonies performed by clergy people, and civil unions are marriages performed by other legal officials. In general speech, we rarely differentiate between a civil union and a wedding, but they're essentially the same thing - the ritual of agreeing to get married. The marriage is really the contract, and either manner of joining is invalid (even if the ritual or ceremony is completed) if the marriage license is not signed.

Do I have that right? - it's late and I'm tired...
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1265
  • Darwins +132/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #104 on: April 16, 2013, 01:43:52 AM »
The marriage is actually the result of whatever ceremony occurs to produce the union.   The wedding is the ceremony whether performed by clergy or civil service.   In America a marriage license is obtained at a city or county courthouse and may be officiated by judges, justices of the peace, ordained ministers, and military or maritime officers.  Who may obtain a marriage license and at what age varies from state to state.  A "civil union" is a legal term applied to a legal contract many states allow between same sex couples which give them the rights and privileges that married couples have.
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1396
  • Darwins +103/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #105 on: April 16, 2013, 03:12:42 AM »
MrJason, you're right.  But that was kind of why I brought it up, as an absurdity that follows mm's treatment of marriage as an agreement/commitment above all else.

I suspected that was your agenda. Happy to help you prove a point  ;)

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1396
  • Darwins +103/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #106 on: April 16, 2013, 05:54:18 AM »
What happens between consenting adults, in the privacy of their home, is none of our business. I don't understand why anyone thinks otherwise.

I agree. Surprised? But that doesn't preclude me from holding an opinion on what the bible teaches.

Trust me, I have zero interest in having consenting adult sexual behaviour outlawed.


Some consenting adult sexual behaviour is outlawed (in the UK in any case.)
The crux of the matter is why the consent is given and the quality of the act that is consented to.
Right or wrong the law does regulate sexual moral standards

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1907
  • Darwins +198/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #107 on: April 16, 2013, 11:44:01 AM »
The marriage is actually the result of whatever ceremony occurs to produce the union.   The wedding is the ceremony whether performed by clergy or civil service.   In America a marriage license is obtained at a city or county courthouse and may be officiated by judges, justices of the peace, ordained ministers, and military or maritime officers.  Who may obtain a marriage license and at what age varies from state to state.  A "civil union" is a legal term applied to a legal contract many states allow between same sex couples which give them the rights and privileges that married couples have.

Hi lpa, thanks for adding the details and clarity.

The term civil union is the one that tends to trip me up. I'm not doubting you, but can you give me a source to something that states that civil unions applies to same sex marraiges, rather than the way I described it (performed by a non-religious officiant, regardless of the gender of the people being married)? I've only done superficial research into it, but I keep finding conficting answers and am not at all confident that I can define it accurately. I think we may have a more productive discussion with mm on this topic if we can define the terms in a way that has us all using them the same.

And I'd like to understand it myself too. I'm legally permitted to officiate weddings - it started as a joke and turned into something rather enjoyable - and according to the process I went through, what I do is a civil union, because I'm not affiliated with a religion. That doesn't mean the information I got was correct, but it fits with my understanding as well, so I didn't question it until recently.

Thanks!
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #108 on: April 16, 2013, 04:39:58 PM »


What do you think justifies the "sickened" feeling in the first place?  Just having the word "marriage" applied to the situation?

Probably. As I've said repeatedly, I entered the fray here to try and focus in on what marriage means to a society.

But, I think I have stayed in the discussion long enough.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #109 on: April 16, 2013, 04:40:46 PM »
Quesi - I agree with most of that. Almost all of it. I'll have more time in a few days to give some longer responses.

Just quickly - I really, truly am mystified how I am being accused of focusing on the sexual act itself. I have tried to explain that the act is just about impossible to remove from so many other things, same as you just did.

Actually Quesi, I don't really have much more to say on the subject.

Thanks for engaging.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline albriston

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #110 on: May 21, 2013, 08:27:43 AM »
This is off in a different direction, but I'm sick of seeing the
"one man and one woman" bit, not particularly because I'm for marriage equality but because it's very dramatic and emphatic. The "one" annoys me, because five men and three women aren't getting married.

I wouldn't have a problem with five men and three women getting married either, regardless of how that may work.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #111 on: May 21, 2013, 08:37:34 AM »
My girlfriend and I were at a Pride parade some years back, where the usual suspects were picketing against the horrible sin of homosexuality.  They used the "1 man + 1 woman = 1 family" line on one of their signs, so she asked why they were telling her that her family wasn't real:  Her father died when she was 10, so her family lacks the "1 man" part.

To the credit of the woman with the sign, she didn't back off from it.  She told my girlfriend that no, without her father, she had no true family anymore.

Good to know these folks are standing up for family values!
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1265
  • Darwins +132/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #112 on: May 21, 2013, 11:06:50 AM »
The marriage is actually the result of whatever ceremony occurs to produce the union.   The wedding is the ceremony whether performed by clergy or civil service.   In America a marriage license is obtained at a city or county courthouse and may be officiated by judges, justices of the peace, ordained ministers, and military or maritime officers.  Who may obtain a marriage license and at what age varies from state to state.  A "civil union" is a legal term applied to a legal contract many states allow between same sex couples which give them the rights and privileges that married couples have.

Hi lpa, thanks for adding the details and clarity.

The term civil union is the one that tends to trip me up. I'm not doubting you, but can you give me a source to something that states that civil unions applies to same sex marraiges, rather than the way I described it (performed by a non-religious officiant, regardless of the gender of the people being married)? I've only done superficial research into it, but I keep finding conficting answers and am not at all confident that I can define it accurately. I think we may have a more productive discussion with mm on this topic if we can define the terms in a way that has us all using them the same.

And I'd like to understand it myself too. I'm legally permitted to officiate weddings - it started as a joke and turned into something rather enjoyable - and according to the process I went through, what I do is a civil union, because I'm not affiliated with a religion. That doesn't mean the information I got was correct, but it fits with my understanding as well, so I didn't question it until recently.

Thanks!

Wikipedia is the closest I could come to a source on civil unions. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1907
  • Darwins +198/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #113 on: May 21, 2013, 11:49:05 AM »
Thanks LoriPinkAngel - I meant to follow up on my question. I think I know my mistake - I was applying the definition of a civil marriage (one performed by a secular official, and seemingly only referring to the actual ceremony*) to civil unions, which is apparently specific to same-sex unions, as far as I can determine.


*per wiki, before going on to discuss civil unions and same sex marriage, so not really all that helpful, lol. At this point, I'm just going with "I don't remember what I was thinking anyway". The language around this issue is so divisive already, this is hardly significant in the big picture anyway.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2462
  • Darwins +131/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #114 on: May 21, 2013, 07:01:55 PM »
This is off in a different direction, but I'm sick of seeing the
"one man and one woman" bit ...

So is this:  Why do all the testosterone commercials only show one man and one woman? Does this mean that only straight men have low-testosterone problems but gay men are always filled with testosterone?



John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #115 on: May 21, 2013, 08:11:51 PM »
This is off in a different direction, but I'm sick of seeing the
"one man and one woman" bit ...

So is this:  Why do all the testosterone commercials only show one man and one woman? Does this mean that only straight men have low-testosterone problems but gay men are always filled with testosterone?

LOL.  You are right.  But we are seeing more and more GLBT individuals and families in various different commercials and ads.

We have touching car ads and even a (French) McDonalds ad,






Both are tear jerkers, right? 

Then we have the wholesome JC Penny's father's day ad. 


I can't get enough of Andrej Pejic.



Hard to imagine him selling Viagra though. 

But who knows?