I disagree...Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 3:03 pmSure, they are different, but that doesn't mean that one is moral while the other isn't. What effect does some woman's sexual choices have on your life? None. Live and let live.
If I want to build a Family for myself, wife, children, long-term relationships, etc. then it starts with Sexual Choice. Should you or I choose a prostitute, a whore, a hooker, etc.? Is she 'equally' viable? Of course not. And that's the difference. It -is- moral. It -is- a moral choice. It's her choice to sleep around, or not. It's my choice to marry her, or not.
Some choices are superior/better than others. When it comes to sexual partnership, family, children, are these not the most important decisions and "choices" of a lifetime???
It should be common-sense that they are. Although, who knows, in clown-world Western Civilization 2024AD?
Maybe, I admit that I'm not the best Christian Theologian, but I would assume 'God' has the best decisions and choices in mind...so it goes back to the beginning of this response: Who's the better choice? Who's the BEST choice?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 3:03 pmBut wait, aren't they equal in the eyes of the "Lord" and aren't you suppose to forgive them being a "good Christian"? How can a God create the circumstances where we have the choice about who we sleep with and love but then condemn certain choices we make?
Marriage and cultural/religious/mythology coincide together though. Whatever was "before" Christianity, likewise was "before" institutions of Marriage. I don't know about that 'primary' reason and cause. Do you have further arguments, proof, or evidence? When I think of Monogamy, I look at Nature, like ducks and some Avian species that reproduce monogamously (life-long mating partners). Some animals do this naturally, and so, wouldn't need an artificial 'Ceremony' to make it so.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 3:03 pmMarriage has been around long before the Bible was written. It was primarily used to show a man's ownership over a woman.
When applied to Humans, Marriage may have been "invented" after-the-fact. In other words, some Humans have a natural behavior to pair-bond for a lifetime...and most other Humans do not. Thus, morality may have been co-opted by this behavior, that the majority of people ought to follow the example of the rare minority that do pair-bond. In other words, Ethics, Morality, and Behavior is adjusted to an already-existing example of how the rest of Humanity 'ought to behave'. Religion and Mysticism are not needed...except as a vestige, an addendum, to mystically Legitimize the 'Best Example' of human behavior.
It's an easy jump to a Priest dictating to his mass: "This is how the rest of you ought to behave." Then add in God's Sanctity.
Aren't you missing the bigger point...?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 3:03 pmThey were often used to strengthen family ties, or for the strategic, political purposes, of making peace with other families or houses, not about love.
It's about sex. It's about making babies. It's about a woman's need for Stability in life, an Ordered, Safe environment to raise her (and his) children?
Doesn't Marriage offer more order, safety, and stability, than non-marriage??
Well that's the crux of our arguments and discussions, isn't it?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 3:03 pmIt is only recently that marriage has been about love which opened the door for same-sex marriage. The answer shouldn't involve whether we should allow same-sex marriage or not, it has to do with taking the government's power for defining marriage away. Why is the government involved with defining marriage in the first place? How I define marriage has no effect on how you define it. We are free to live our lives in this way without interference.
For millions of years sex has used for more than just procreation. It is used to strengthen social bonds and to relieve stress. I had a vasectomy and still have sex, not for procreation, but for pleasure with my wife without being concerned about making more offspring.
It's about the Authority to dictate Laws surrounding marriage, or in the case of Religion and Mysticism, divine Authority by which traditions, culture, and ethnic-identities are upheld and defended...or are destroyed.
Can Ireland remain "Irish" if millions of foreigner males invade and marry all the Irish women, leaving none for the original, resident Irishmen? No, the Ethnicity would be destroyed. The "Irish" people and identity, would be destroyed. Therefore, "Marriage" is supposed to guard against such ethnic/racial/cultural replacement. It's about having a social identity, a Society, a Family, a Tribe, a specific group of People.
I wish it were that easy and simple... even if the Far-Left and Far-Right could, hypothetically, meet in the middle, where exactly would the middle be found?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 3:03 pmI agree wholeheartedly here. Both parties are the problem. If the extremists on the left had their way, America would be a communist country. If the extremists on the right had their way America would be a theocracy. The best answers lie somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. When I argue against the left, they accuse me of being a right-winger. When I argue against the right, the call me a left-winger. It must suck to see the world in only red or blue, or black and white.
And BTW, the left is not liberal. They are authoritarian socialists in liberal skin. Libertarians are the true liberals. The left is not progressive either, as humans have been there and done that with authoritarian socialism. Progressivism is trying something new, like abolishing political parties.
We need to abolish political parties. No more Ds and Rs next to people's names on the ballot. Make people actually educate themselves on the candidates and think for themselves rather than let the Party think for them.
I think that's what's being debated, lately, around the forum. There needs to be some central point, some basis for contention. Without a 'Centre', there is only endless bickering, fighting, and chaos.