On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote: What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"?
yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here:
- The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible.
- Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
- Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights.
Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement.
I'm not going to argue the merits of the religion in the bible, but most events that are written about in the bible are confirmed by other historical sources.
same can be said of spiderman and nyc
Huh? This really isn't the thread for it, but what historical sources describe spiderman and nyc(?). The bible is confirmed by the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, as well as other minor powers in the area. Archeological digs in the area has also found many of the cities and artifacts referred to in the bible.
historical accuracy of the bible can be comparable to any fictional novel. In Spiderman there are police cars that look similar to police cars now, NYC is similar, there are newspapers, etc. The list goes on and on. Claiming that their are historical things in the bible is pointless.
There are stories in the Bible that are corroborated with historical records and stories in other mythos, I think is what Myles is talking about. Less about the "how things looked" aspect (Spidey NYC police cars vs actual NYC police cars) but rather "what happened" (Spidey thwarting crooks vs Spidey being a guy in a suit at Universal Studios).
The accuracy and scale of those stories is certainly to be questioned, but many of the events can be confirmed.
On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote: What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"?
yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here:
- The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible.
- Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
- Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights.
Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement.
I'm not going to argue the merits of the religion in the bible, but most events that are written about in the bible are confirmed by other historical sources.
same can be said of spiderman and nyc
Huh? This really isn't the thread for it, but what historical sources describe spiderman and nyc(?). The bible is confirmed by the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, as well as other minor powers in the area. Archeological digs in the area has also found many of the cities and artifacts referred to in the bible.
historical accuracy of the bible can be comparable to any fictional novel. In Spiderman there are police cars that look similar to police cars now, NYC is similar, there are newspapers, etc. The list goes on and on. Claiming that their are historical things in the bible is pointless.
I would never believe any of the specific details. However, I don't doubt for a second that a man went around preaching a new religion around the year 0. The general time line of the bible is pretty much accepted as accurate.
On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote: What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"?
yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here:
- The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible.
- Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
- Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights.
Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement.
I'm not going to argue the merits of the religion in the bible, but most events that are written about in the bible are confirmed by other historical sources.
same can be said of spiderman and nyc
Huh? This really isn't the thread for it, but what historical sources describe spiderman and nyc(?). The bible is confirmed by the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, as well as other minor powers in the area. Archeological digs in the area has also found many of the cities and artifacts referred to in the bible.
historical accuracy of the bible can be comparable to any fictional novel. In Spiderman there are police cars that look similar to police cars now, NYC is similar, there are newspapers, etc. The list goes on and on. Claiming that their are historical things in the bible is pointless.
that's pretty horrible reasoning. Looking beyond religious fanatics such as myself, the books are categorized by secular intellectuals into the following categories: mythical (like Genesis and Job), historical (Numbers, 1st/2nd Chronicles), and didactic (most New Testament books). There's no point in disparaging an excellent written source just cuz you hate the religion.
On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote: What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"?
yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here:
- The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible.
- Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
- Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights.
Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement.
I'm not going to argue the merits of the religion in the bible, but most events that are written about in the bible are confirmed by other historical sources.
same can be said of spiderman and nyc
Huh? This really isn't the thread for it, but what historical sources describe spiderman and nyc(?). The bible is confirmed by the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, as well as other minor powers in the area. Archeological digs in the area has also found many of the cities and artifacts referred to in the bible.
historical accuracy of the bible can be comparable to any fictional novel. In Spiderman there are police cars that look similar to police cars now, NYC is similar, there are newspapers, etc. The list goes on and on. Claiming that their are historical things in the bible is pointless.
There are stories in the Bible that are corroborated with historical records and stories in other mythos, I think is what Myles is talking about. Less about the "how things looked" aspect (Spidey NYC police cars vs actual NYC police cars) but rather "what happened" (Spidey thwarting crooks vs Spidey being a guy in a suit at Universal Studios).
The accuracy and scale of those stories is certainly to be questioned, but many of the events can be confirmed.
On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote: What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"?
yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here:
- The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible.
- Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
- Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights.
Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement.
I'm not going to argue the merits of the religion in the bible, but most events that are written about in the bible are confirmed by other historical sources.
same can be said of spiderman and nyc
Huh? This really isn't the thread for it, but what historical sources describe spiderman and nyc(?). The bible is confirmed by the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, as well as other minor powers in the area. Archeological digs in the area has also found many of the cities and artifacts referred to in the bible.
historical accuracy of the bible can be comparable to any fictional novel. In Spiderman there are police cars that look similar to police cars now, NYC is similar, there are newspapers, etc. The list goes on and on. Claiming that their are historical things in the bible is pointless.
There are stories in the Bible that are corroborated with historical records and stories in other mythos, I think is what Myles is talking about. Less about the "how things looked" aspect (Spidey NYC police cars vs actual NYC police cars) but rather "what happened" (Spidey thwarting crooks vs Spidey being a guy in a suit at Universal Studios).
The accuracy and scale of those stories is certainly to be questioned, but many of the events can be confirmed.
lol that has nothing to do with me. I already said there are historical accuracies in the bible but again who cares? There are historical truths in tons of fiction but we wouldnt say that makes them non fiction would we? Again, this whole discussion is pointless lets get back on topic.
yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here:
- The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible.
- Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
- Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights.
Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement.
I'm not going to argue the merits of the religion in the bible, but most events that are written about in the bible are confirmed by other historical sources.
same can be said of spiderman and nyc
Huh? This really isn't the thread for it, but what historical sources describe spiderman and nyc(?). The bible is confirmed by the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, as well as other minor powers in the area. Archeological digs in the area has also found many of the cities and artifacts referred to in the bible.
historical accuracy of the bible can be comparable to any fictional novel. In Spiderman there are police cars that look similar to police cars now, NYC is similar, there are newspapers, etc. The list goes on and on. Claiming that their are historical things in the bible is pointless.
There are stories in the Bible that are corroborated with historical records and stories in other mythos, I think is what Myles is talking about. Less about the "how things looked" aspect (Spidey NYC police cars vs actual NYC police cars) but rather "what happened" (Spidey thwarting crooks vs Spidey being a guy in a suit at Universal Studios).
The accuracy and scale of those stories is certainly to be questioned, but many of the events can be confirmed.
lol that has nothing to do with me. I already said there are historical accuracies in the bible but again who cares? There are historical truths in tons of fiction but we wouldnt say that makes them non fiction would we? Again, this whole discussion is pointless lets get back on topic.
Or you try to separate the fiction from the non-fiction. Just because part of it is mythical and clearly false doesn't mean you disregard the rest of the historical accuracies.
Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement.
I'm not going to argue the merits of the religion in the bible, but most events that are written about in the bible are confirmed by other historical sources.
same can be said of spiderman and nyc
Huh? This really isn't the thread for it, but what historical sources describe spiderman and nyc(?). The bible is confirmed by the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, as well as other minor powers in the area. Archeological digs in the area has also found many of the cities and artifacts referred to in the bible.
historical accuracy of the bible can be comparable to any fictional novel. In Spiderman there are police cars that look similar to police cars now, NYC is similar, there are newspapers, etc. The list goes on and on. Claiming that their are historical things in the bible is pointless.
There are stories in the Bible that are corroborated with historical records and stories in other mythos, I think is what Myles is talking about. Less about the "how things looked" aspect (Spidey NYC police cars vs actual NYC police cars) but rather "what happened" (Spidey thwarting crooks vs Spidey being a guy in a suit at Universal Studios).
The accuracy and scale of those stories is certainly to be questioned, but many of the events can be confirmed.
lol that has nothing to do with me. I already said there are historical accuracies in the bible but again who cares? There are historical truths in tons of fiction but we wouldnt say that makes them non fiction would we? Again, this whole discussion is pointless lets get back on topic.
Or you try to separate the fiction from the non-fiction. Just because part of it is mythical and clearly false doesn't mean you disregard the rest of the historical accuracies.
On November 05 2008 05:29 d_so wrote: - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
Uhm, no that isn't true. There were plenty of reasons why people got married, biological need aside. I don't see how you can argue that if you know anything about history. Do you for instance believe arranged marriages was all about making babies?
The best argument you have that marriage predates religion are the nomadic bands and tribes that predate the centrally-governed chiefdoms and states that would later arise. It is during this time that marriages occurred without an organized religion to confirm the marriage. But even though there was no organized religion, there were still witch doctors and shamans who held the role of spiritual leader and often presided over the marriage as a representative of the spirit realm. So even though there may have been no official religion, they still appealed to the spirits in confirming their marriage.
Once civilization evolved into centrally organized chiefdoms and states, it's almost impossible to deny the role of religion in marriage. Remember, I'm not talking about Christianity here, just religion. And the reason it's difficult is because the religion and government rise almost simultaneously in almost all cases of centrally-organized civilizations. In the Pulitzer winning book, Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Dudley argues why this is so:
The remaining way for kleptocrats to gain public support is to construct an ideology or religion justifying keptocracy. Bands and tribes already had supernatural beliefs... but supernatural beliefs did not serve to justify central authority (p.277)
And thus a married couple often needed to gain recognition from the religion to confirm their marriage. And even if it wasn't a priest, there's all sorts of rituals and customs that are part of the marriage process that are designed to make an appeal to the spiritual.
I'm not saying non-religious marriages didn't exist, because they definitely did. What I'm saying is you can't argue marriage predates, or comes before religion.
On November 05 2008 05:29 d_so wrote: - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
Uhm, no that isn't true. There were plenty of reasons why people got married, biological need aside. I don't see how you can argue that if you know anything about history. Do you for instance believe arranged marriages was all about making babies?
The best argument you have that marriage predates religion are the nomadic bands and tribes that predate the centrally-governed chiefdoms and states that would later arise. It is during this time that marriages occurred without an organized religion to confirm the marriage. But even though there was no organized religion, there were still witch doctors and shamans who held the role of spiritual leader and often presided over the marriage as a representative of the spirit realm. So even though there may have been no official religion, they still appealed to the spirits in confirming their marriage.
Once civilization evolved into centrally organized chiefdoms and states, it's almost impossible to deny the role of religion in marriage. Remember, I'm not talking about Christianity here, just religion. And the reason it's difficult is because the religion and government rise almost simultaneously in almost all cases of centrally-organized civilizations. In the Pulitzer winning book, Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Dudley argues why this is so:
The remaining way for kleptocrats to gain public support is to construct an ideology or religion justifying keptocracy. Bands and tribes already had supernatural beliefs... but supernatural beliefs did not serve to justify central authority (p.277)
And thus a married couple often needed to gain recognition from the religion to confirm their marriage. And even if it wasn't a priest, there's all sorts of rituals and customs that are part of the marriage process that are designed to make an appeal to the spiritual.
I'm not saying non-religious marriages didn't exist, because they definitely did. What I'm saying is you can't argue marriage predates, or comes before religion.
What's the relevance of this line of reasoning? You're living in a secular state, dude!! If ignorant priests and their intolerant followers don't want gay people to get married in their temples then so be it. Doesn't mean gays can't get the same type of contract under the law. Keep pretending that there's something holy about your unions and not theirs. Who gives a shit about what was considered to be proper in the times when keeping slaves was the most respectable thing in the world. We've got this priciple called universality now. It means that we emphasize our common humanity and don't cordon people off based on secondary differences like sex, origin or crede. Rights are UNIVERSAL because we say they are, because that makes sense to good people. Religious people should try to learn the basic rules of morality.
On November 05 2008 05:29 d_so wrote: - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
Uhm, no that isn't true. There were plenty of reasons why people got married, biological need aside. I don't see how you can argue that if you know anything about history. Do you for instance believe arranged marriages was all about making babies?
The best argument you have that marriage predates religion are the nomadic bands and tribes that predate the centrally-governed chiefdoms and states that would later arise. It is during this time that marriages occurred without an organized religion to confirm the marriage. But even though there was no organized religion, there were still witch doctors and shamans who held the role of spiritual leader and often presided over the marriage as a representative of the spirit realm. So even though there may have been no official religion, they still appealed to the spirits in confirming their marriage.
Once civilization evolved into centrally organized chiefdoms and states, it's almost impossible to deny the role of religion in marriage. Remember, I'm not talking about Christianity here, just religion. And the reason it's difficult is because the religion and government rise almost simultaneously in almost all cases of centrally-organized civilizations. In the Pulitzer winning book, Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Dudley argues why this is so:
The remaining way for kleptocrats to gain public support is to construct an ideology or religion justifying keptocracy. Bands and tribes already had supernatural beliefs... but supernatural beliefs did not serve to justify central authority (p.277)
And thus a married couple often needed to gain recognition from the religion to confirm their marriage. And even if it wasn't a priest, there's all sorts of rituals and customs that are part of the marriage process that are designed to make an appeal to the spiritual.
I'm not saying non-religious marriages didn't exist, because they definitely did. What I'm saying is you can't argue marriage predates, or comes before religion.
What's the relevance of this line of reasoning? You're living in a secular state, dude!! If ignorant priests and their intolerant followers don't want gay people to get married in their temples then so be it. Doesn't mean gays can't get the same type of contract under the law. Keep pretending that there's something holy about your unions and not theirs. Who gives a shit about what was considered to be proper in the times when keeping slaves was the most respectable thing in the world. We've got this priciple called universality now. It means that we emphasize our common humanity and don't cordon people off based on secondary differences like sex, origin or crede. Rights are UNIVERSAL because we say they are, because that makes sense to good people. Religious people should try to learn the basic rules of morality.
the longer this thread exists the more i doubt the supposed rationality of the atheistic mind, especially when so many of you have such poor reading comprehension.
I am against prop 8. I've been consistently against it from the moment I created this OP two years ago till now. I've never said I wanted a law to ban gay marriages. (Remember, opposing prop 8 means not banning gay marriages.)
What's the relevance of that line of reasoning? To answer a question from that poster.
If I were you, I would really, REALLY refrain from calling people ignorant until some basic reading comprehension is incorporated in your rhetoric.
On November 05 2008 05:29 d_so wrote: - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
Uhm, no that isn't true. There were plenty of reasons why people got married, biological need aside. I don't see how you can argue that if you know anything about history. Do you for instance believe arranged marriages was all about making babies?
The best argument you have that marriage predates religion are the nomadic bands and tribes that predate the centrally-governed chiefdoms and states that would later arise. It is during this time that marriages occurred without an organized religion to confirm the marriage. But even though there was no organized religion, there were still witch doctors and shamans who held the role of spiritual leader and often presided over the marriage as a representative of the spirit realm. So even though there may have been no official religion, they still appealed to the spirits in confirming their marriage.
Once civilization evolved into centrally organized chiefdoms and states, it's almost impossible to deny the role of religion in marriage. Remember, I'm not talking about Christianity here, just religion. And the reason it's difficult is because the religion and government rise almost simultaneously in almost all cases of centrally-organized civilizations. In the Pulitzer winning book, Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Dudley argues why this is so:
The remaining way for kleptocrats to gain public support is to construct an ideology or religion justifying keptocracy. Bands and tribes already had supernatural beliefs... but supernatural beliefs did not serve to justify central authority (p.277)
And thus a married couple often needed to gain recognition from the religion to confirm their marriage. And even if it wasn't a priest, there's all sorts of rituals and customs that are part of the marriage process that are designed to make an appeal to the spiritual.
I'm not saying non-religious marriages didn't exist, because they definitely did. What I'm saying is you can't argue marriage predates, or comes before religion.
What's the relevance of this line of reasoning? You're living in a secular state, dude!! If ignorant priests and their intolerant followers don't want gay people to get married in their temples then so be it. Doesn't mean gays can't get the same type of contract under the law. Keep pretending that there's something holy about your unions and not theirs. Who gives a shit about what was considered to be proper in the times when keeping slaves was the most respectable thing in the world. We've got this priciple called universality now. It means that we emphasize our common humanity and don't cordon people off based on secondary differences like sex, origin or crede. Rights are UNIVERSAL because we say they are, because that makes sense to good people. Religious people should try to learn the basic rules of morality.
the longer this thread exists the more i doubt the supposed rationality of the atheistic mind, especially when so many of you have such poor reading comprehension.
I am against prop 8. I've been consistently against it from the moment I created this OP two years ago till now. I've never said I wanted a law to ban gay marriages. (Remember, opposing prop 8 means not banning gay marriages.)
What's the relevance of that line of reasoning? To answer a question from that poster.
If I were you, I would really, REALLY refrain from calling people ignorant until some basic reading comprehension is incorporated in your rhetoric.
Atheist or theist, idiocy abouts in the human race as a whole
In a "lets pull examples of previous instances of a/theistic irrationality" contest, both sides would have plenty of ammo.
On November 05 2008 05:29 d_so wrote: - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
Uhm, no that isn't true. There were plenty of reasons why people got married, biological need aside. I don't see how you can argue that if you know anything about history. Do you for instance believe arranged marriages was all about making babies?
The best argument you have that marriage predates religion are the nomadic bands and tribes that predate the centrally-governed chiefdoms and states that would later arise. It is during this time that marriages occurred without an organized religion to confirm the marriage. But even though there was no organized religion, there were still witch doctors and shamans who held the role of spiritual leader and often presided over the marriage as a representative of the spirit realm. So even though there may have been no official religion, they still appealed to the spirits in confirming their marriage.
Once civilization evolved into centrally organized chiefdoms and states, it's almost impossible to deny the role of religion in marriage. Remember, I'm not talking about Christianity here, just religion. And the reason it's difficult is because the religion and government rise almost simultaneously in almost all cases of centrally-organized civilizations. In the Pulitzer winning book, Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Dudley argues why this is so:
The remaining way for kleptocrats to gain public support is to construct an ideology or religion justifying keptocracy. Bands and tribes already had supernatural beliefs... but supernatural beliefs did not serve to justify central authority (p.277)
And thus a married couple often needed to gain recognition from the religion to confirm their marriage. And even if it wasn't a priest, there's all sorts of rituals and customs that are part of the marriage process that are designed to make an appeal to the spiritual.
I'm not saying non-religious marriages didn't exist, because they definitely did. What I'm saying is you can't argue marriage predates, or comes before religion.
What's the relevance of this line of reasoning? You're living in a secular state, dude!! If ignorant priests and their intolerant followers don't want gay people to get married in their temples then so be it. Doesn't mean gays can't get the same type of contract under the law. Keep pretending that there's something holy about your unions and not theirs. Who gives a shit about what was considered to be proper in the times when keeping slaves was the most respectable thing in the world. We've got this priciple called universality now. It means that we emphasize our common humanity and don't cordon people off based on secondary differences like sex, origin or crede. Rights are UNIVERSAL because we say they are, because that makes sense to good people. Religious people should try to learn the basic rules of morality.
the longer this thread exists the more i doubt the supposed rationality of the atheistic mind, especially when so many of you have such poor reading comprehension.
I am against prop 8. I've been consistently against it from the moment I created this OP two years ago till now. I've never said I wanted a law to ban gay marriages. (Remember, opposing prop 8 means not banning gay marriages.)
What's the relevance of that line of reasoning? To answer a question from that poster.
If I were you, I would really, REALLY refrain from calling people ignorant until some basic reading comprehension is incorporated in your rhetoric.
Atheist or theist, idiocy abouts in the human race as a whole
In a "lets pull examples of previous instances of a/theistic irrationality" contest, both sides would have plenty of ammo.
I think Neil Gaiman put it best in The Sandman: Season of Mists, when Satan says to Morpheus:
And they're always blaming it on me. "The Devil made me do it." "It was by the power of Satan". // Honestly, I don't care. Humans do it to themselves. Sure, it may have been fun in the beginning but it gets old. (terribly paraphrased by me, I'm quoting this from memory)
In other words, I agree with you that it's not religion or atheism that is responsible for idiocy, it's the common denominator between the two: people.
On November 05 2008 05:29 d_so wrote: - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
Uhm, no that isn't true. There were plenty of reasons why people got married, biological need aside. I don't see how you can argue that if you know anything about history. Do you for instance believe arranged marriages was all about making babies?
The best argument you have that marriage predates religion are the nomadic bands and tribes that predate the centrally-governed chiefdoms and states that would later arise. It is during this time that marriages occurred without an organized religion to confirm the marriage. But even though there was no organized religion, there were still witch doctors and shamans who held the role of spiritual leader and often presided over the marriage as a representative of the spirit realm. So even though there may have been no official religion, they still appealed to the spirits in confirming their marriage.
Once civilization evolved into centrally organized chiefdoms and states, it's almost impossible to deny the role of religion in marriage. Remember, I'm not talking about Christianity here, just religion. And the reason it's difficult is because the religion and government rise almost simultaneously in almost all cases of centrally-organized civilizations. In the Pulitzer winning book, Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Dudley argues why this is so:
The remaining way for kleptocrats to gain public support is to construct an ideology or religion justifying keptocracy. Bands and tribes already had supernatural beliefs... but supernatural beliefs did not serve to justify central authority (p.277)
And thus a married couple often needed to gain recognition from the religion to confirm their marriage. And even if it wasn't a priest, there's all sorts of rituals and customs that are part of the marriage process that are designed to make an appeal to the spiritual.
I'm not saying non-religious marriages didn't exist, because they definitely did. What I'm saying is you can't argue marriage predates, or comes before religion.
What's the relevance of this line of reasoning? You're living in a secular state, dude!! If ignorant priests and their intolerant followers don't want gay people to get married in their temples then so be it. Doesn't mean gays can't get the same type of contract under the law. Keep pretending that there's something holy about your unions and not theirs. Who gives a shit about what was considered to be proper in the times when keeping slaves was the most respectable thing in the world. We've got this priciple called universality now. It means that we emphasize our common humanity and don't cordon people off based on secondary differences like sex, origin or crede. Rights are UNIVERSAL because we say they are, because that makes sense to good people. Religious people should try to learn the basic rules of morality.
the longer this thread exists the more i doubt the supposed rationality of the atheistic mind, especially when so many of you have such poor reading comprehension.
I am against prop 8. I've been consistently against it from the moment I created this OP two years ago till now. I've never said I wanted a law to ban gay marriages. (Remember, opposing prop 8 means not banning gay marriages.)
What's the relevance of that line of reasoning? To answer a question from that poster.
If I were you, I would really, REALLY refrain from calling people ignorant until some basic reading comprehension is incorporated in your rhetoric.
You complain about reading comprehension when you completely missed the point of my post... I don't argue whether or not marriage came before religion, only the following conclusion you drew (you know, the one I bolded):
First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work
On November 05 2008 05:29 d_so wrote: - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
Uhm, no that isn't true. There were plenty of reasons why people got married, biological need aside. I don't see how you can argue that if you know anything about history. Do you for instance believe arranged marriages was all about making babies?
The best argument you have that marriage predates religion are the nomadic bands and tribes that predate the centrally-governed chiefdoms and states that would later arise. It is during this time that marriages occurred without an organized religion to confirm the marriage. But even though there was no organized religion, there were still witch doctors and shamans who held the role of spiritual leader and often presided over the marriage as a representative of the spirit realm. So even though there may have been no official religion, they still appealed to the spirits in confirming their marriage.
Once civilization evolved into centrally organized chiefdoms and states, it's almost impossible to deny the role of religion in marriage. Remember, I'm not talking about Christianity here, just religion. And the reason it's difficult is because the religion and government rise almost simultaneously in almost all cases of centrally-organized civilizations. In the Pulitzer winning book, Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Dudley argues why this is so:
The remaining way for kleptocrats to gain public support is to construct an ideology or religion justifying keptocracy. Bands and tribes already had supernatural beliefs... but supernatural beliefs did not serve to justify central authority (p.277)
And thus a married couple often needed to gain recognition from the religion to confirm their marriage. And even if it wasn't a priest, there's all sorts of rituals and customs that are part of the marriage process that are designed to make an appeal to the spiritual.
I'm not saying non-religious marriages didn't exist, because they definitely did. What I'm saying is you can't argue marriage predates, or comes before religion.
What's the relevance of this line of reasoning? You're living in a secular state, dude!! If ignorant priests and their intolerant followers don't want gay people to get married in their temples then so be it. Doesn't mean gays can't get the same type of contract under the law. Keep pretending that there's something holy about your unions and not theirs. Who gives a shit about what was considered to be proper in the times when keeping slaves was the most respectable thing in the world. We've got this priciple called universality now. It means that we emphasize our common humanity and don't cordon people off based on secondary differences like sex, origin or crede. Rights are UNIVERSAL because we say they are, because that makes sense to good people. Religious people should try to learn the basic rules of morality.
the longer this thread exists the more i doubt the supposed rationality of the atheistic mind, especially when so many of you have such poor reading comprehension.
I am against prop 8. I've been consistently against it from the moment I created this OP two years ago till now. I've never said I wanted a law to ban gay marriages. (Remember, opposing prop 8 means not banning gay marriages.)
What's the relevance of that line of reasoning? To answer a question from that poster.
If I were you, I would really, REALLY refrain from calling people ignorant until some basic reading comprehension is incorporated in your rhetoric.
You complain about reading comprehension when you completely missed the point of my post... I don't argue whether or not marriage came before religion, only the following conclusion you drew (you know, the one I bolded):
First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work
Which is a complete fallacy.
ok then. I'm willing to agree with you on this if you can tell me why humans got married before there was religion.
edit: I don't think you realize the mistake you've made in addressing my point. I'll analyze it step by step:
1.) Marriage predates religion? OK, but then you're probably going to have to go way back in time, before written documents, before civilizations even. This is because where civilizations arise, religions have also.
2.) So now we're looking at non-civilization based humans living together in bands. It is questionable whether they even have a concept of what marriage is tbh.
3.) This is why I say that, if you're arguing marriage predates religion, you're almost forced into a biological argument: ie our ancient ancestors probably got married to one another, as in they were monogamous, but strictly for biological reasons since they couldn't even grasp the concept of what marriage was most likely.
edit 2: Now I know why you're confused. It's cuz you took my quote out of context. Here's the relevant quote.
Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work.
Yeah, if you just take the second sentence and bold it, of course it doesn't work. But I'm stating a hypothetical conclusion that could be derived if you make the marriage before religion the premise of your argument.
i'm trying to think of a way the supreme court can deem gay marriage illegal without violating the constitution and i can't.
i think the supreme court will uphold the overturn of prop 8 in no more than 5 years. it took roe v wade ~3 years for it to make it's way to the supreme court and be decided.
On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote: What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"?
yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here:
- The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible.
- Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
- Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights.
Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement.
I'm not going to argue the merits of the religion in the bible, but most events that are written about in the bible are confirmed by other historical sources.
same can be said of spiderman and nyc
Huh? This really isn't the thread for it, but what historical sources describe spiderman and nyc(?). The bible is confirmed by the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, as well as other minor powers in the area. Archeological digs in the area has also found many of the cities and artifacts referred to in the bible.
Which events? You can't throw out a blanket statement such as "most events" are confirmed without explaining which ones. Sadist's point is relevant, because it partly describes an accurate setting along with a fictional stories. Many of the stories are generalities similar to the way Nostradamus made predictions. We know a lot of the big things in the Old Testament, like Exodus, is mostly false and we know the Flood was just one of many floods that happened all around the world. In the New Testament, you've got real characters and there's no doubt that Jesus existed, but so did dozens of other prophets in the exact same time period trying to spread their own Word, and we know that the stories in the New Testament were decided upon by a group of men. What to include, what to exclude, etc.
If you really want to use the Biblical example of marriage, then you've just confirmed polygamy because "one man and one woman" is actually the least common type of marriage documented in it.
And it's common historical knowledge that marriage does pre-date religion, certainly predating Christianity, and among real civilizations. The problem with it, even if that weren't the case, is that it's totally irrelevant today, what its foundations were. It's actually quite amusing to see American Protestants argue the foundations of marriage and the Church, when that view is completely opposed to the spirit of the Reformation. Even to Martin Luther, marriage was not exclusive to religion.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2634771/2/istockphoto_2634771-hitting-a-nail-on-the-head.jpg)
