Would it be trolling to write a letter to the paper to make people think?

Remove all ads!

I dunno mate. I'm a (Church of England) Christian. For me it was a choice. A deeply personal choice (in that I have no desire to push it onto other people as I view it as their choice too. Whatever gets you through the day is fine by me. I doubt God is going to really appreciate the love and forgiveness being thrown out so we can force beliefs on people! ).

Anyhow... The old testament (Leviticus) states that a man shouldn't lie with another man, you shouldn't eat meat from pigs or shellfish and that child birth is unclean.

Now, personally, I think it's a wee bitty hypocrital to hide behind the bible and hate people for being gay while chowing down on a bacon sandwich and there's no way I'm giving up bacon and pork (seriously, the price of beef these days is horrendous! It's like cocaine; the good stuff costs and ever since Tesco stopped cutting their beef with horse meat the price has gone through the roof!), so I can't very well go calling down hellfire and damnation on gay people without being a world-class twonk!

OK, I suppose the whole bisexual thing colours my views slightly but I still think I have a point!

---------- Added 0 hours, 9 minutes and 38 seconds later... ----------

And another thing!!

There is a theory which I genuinely believe and that is that the bible is a bunch of metaphors to explain things to people who couldn't understand. Leviticus really just bans things that were (at the time) unsafe. With no for of barrier protection, the spread of STD's needed to be slowed somehow. AIDS/HIV is not a new thing, it's been around in one form or another for centuries. We know that some shell fish can be unsafe and there are various strains of foot and mouth but, 2000 years ago, how would you explain it to people?

It's like Genisis (the book, not the band). The whole 7 days thing is clearly a story about evolution for people who had no scientific or archaeological understanding!

To put it another way... if you took a laptop computer back in time a thousand years, could you explain how it works to the people back there? Or would they just class it as witch craft? See, half the time I'm sure that all this technocrap has a mind of it's own and is run, ultimately, by pixies...and I grew up in the technological revolution!
You can only explain technology and science to the limits of the listeners technological or scientific understanding. Once you get past that then it's time to make a reservation at the top of the bonfire for stake and deep fried body parts all round.

I have totally forgotten the point I was trying to make now. I'm tired and drunk and I need a wee

 

Well of course, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. My point was more that most people (I don't know if this is true of you or not) were introduced to the religion they follow throughout their lives as children. It's a form of indoctrination really. And while it doesn't apply to the Anglican Church, I'd imagine that if you were raised in a family were praciticing polygamy was OK, that you would more likely to think it was OK, as opposed to someone who wasn't in such a situation.

I used to think that way, but there's just so much stuff that you read in the bible that doesn't fit into the metophorical narrative. Like Abraham willing to sacrifice his son on an altar for God. That was a metaphor for what? It works for some stuff - like the Genesis story that you mention, but not so much for others.

 

Aye well The Chronicles of Narnia was all about the peace, love, and forgiveness bit of the bible...

...but I ain't seen many talking lions around either

 

Polygamy lends itself open to power abuse. Rich, manipulative or otherwise powerful men could get married many times over. If you see it simply as a contract where the provider must be able to support his wives, there is no problem there. But the traditional concept of love is fairly universal throughout the world. There are many reasons why marriage is 1 on 1. I'd have to agree that polygamy is a straw man argument, and an obnoxious one at that.
Allowing homosexuality is about freedom of choice of your life partner. "Choice" is a touchy word, because many gay people insist that 100% of humans are born with their preference already determined. no choice means it's unreasonable to pass judgement on people, but that's hardly a realistic representation of the entire population. of course some choose it in later life. Although I can envision some exploitive situations in a gay marriage, they are no worse than what already happens in straight marriages.

 

I never really thought of polygamy as a strawman argument, I was thinking that several times I've seen those "news magazine" shows like Dateline, 20/20, 60 minutes, etc show a feature on how it is still illegally practiced in the United States.

I honestly don't see the problem with it as long as it is based on love and mutual consent without exploitation.

 

I would agree, it's just that in practice, it hardly ever occurs based on love and mutual consent without exploitation. We're talking about 40, 50 or even 60 year old men getting married to teenaged girls.

And for the record, the only group I'm aware of that still practices polygamy is the FLDS Church, which is completely separate and distinct from the Church of LDS, commonly referred to as Mormon.

 

Back in college I did know of a girl who was involved with 2 boys, and often slept with them both at the same time. Not my cup of tea, but I don't see any more of a problem in letting them make that a permanent and legal arrangement than allowing two men or two women to marry.
Nor could I see a problem with a guy marrying two girls.

Although i do wonder about say a situation that involves a guy, two girls, a lot of alcohol, and them both winding up pregnant in the morning. Should he be pressured to marry them both "to take responsibility" if polygamy was legal?

 

In China, marriages are looked upon from very traditional viewpoints, with dowries, early pregnancy, family house/mortgage, etc. There's a serious issue with men and women in the country: There used to be too many sons born, because families preferred a man who would stay with the family over a women who is married off into another one. But nowadays, people sometimes prefer daughters, because you get a dowry, don't have to provide a car or house, and unlike old times, the daughter still keeps in touch with her own family.

Now there's still an overabundance of men, and the crazed scuttle for the women in the country is quite sad. But all the bad stuff aside, there's a host of advantages to the family values that are nurtured within Chinese families. Most of which I'm not able to describe accurately due to lack of knowledge. Suffice to say the streets in China are safe at night.

But I wonder: If you allow polygamy, then what's the point of marriage at all? It's about finding your life partner. 1 on 1 dynamics are complex enough. If fortunate Chinese can play "Disciple: Breeder" with every partner that falls for their charm/money/power *AND* marry them all, then that will make the balance in the country even worse. Some Arab countries allow unlimited polygamy, and I'm sure the Shah's 147th wife will say they have a loving consensual relationship (because she had no better choice). If we're going down that route, then best to water down the marriage agreement entirely, to accommodate the Shahs out there. Divorce is such a pricy affair, after all.

Let's make it into a degree with no legal repercussions whatsoever. you can hang it on the wall together with your other meaningless certificates:
- I got my yellow belt in Karate
- I rode the sky-high rollercoaster and survived
- I slept with the Shah and married him

 

Well, you're actually making two assumptions here. Not only would polygamy need to be legal, but other social subjects and legal viewpoints would have to be changed as well. He may be pressured, but he's not legally obligated to marry either of them the way the current law stands, so I don't see why he would be obligated to marry both if polygamy were legal. Secondly, he is legally obligated to pay support for both children regardless of whether he marries one, both, or neither. Granted, if he's married he wouldn't be actually paying child support in all likelihood, but he's responsible for both the children either way.

@Coin - I saw a documentary recently that women are very much in demand in China. Owing to the one child policy that existed in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, and the desire to have boys, the people who are now of marrying age include many more men than women. Young women in China typically have a choice of a large number of suitors. They interviewed some young men in China, and the feeling is that if you don't have a decent paying job, you essentially have no chance of getting married.

 

It would be trolling NOT to.

 

I think there is something missing here.

There are some good points but the only one who seemed to think seriously about religious POVs, sadly and with irony, is the only one who raised a possibility that nobody else hit on and then rejected it.

There *ARE* religious groups that welcome gay people as gay people. Yes some Christian churches even have a ceremony for gay couples that commit to each other.

The only person to even think of the possibility that religious groups who may welcome gay people lives in Utah-a state not known for religious diversity. Now I'm sure there are minority religious groups in Utah but there seems to be a reasonably clear majority religion there and I bet the next largest group has a similar opinion on gay marriage.

So both the largest religious groups in Utah seem to agree on gay marriage and nobody thinks to ask if there could possibly be a different religious view except for the person who thinks of it but turns away from lack or knowledge and/or experience.

I've spoken with and caught rides from someone who goes it a minority (religious denomination rather than skin color) church that is fine with gay marriage.

And this shows why gay marriage bans may violate freedom of religion. In places where a gay marriage ban passed it was essentially a group of larger churches telling smaller churches (some eagerly agree while others do not) who they are not allowed to legally marry within their own church/temple.

I don't care for when people put religious thought into 2 boxes. One fits for stereotypical religious groups and the other is for stereotypical atheists eager dump on religion. Both seem limited to the typical talking points yet are vocal in society today.

As a side note I'm not comfortable with having a guy "take responsibility" by marrying a girl he got pregnant. Sometimes it goes well and is among the best things that has happened with the person but other times it has not and now the woman is both divorced and went through bad marriage. I say this out of knowing 2 different people each related to 1 of these situations.

 

I was sorta cracking a joke when I made the "take responsibility" comment, although I was having a flash to an old Donahue show (it often came on right after Jeopardy! and so I'd see or hear the first couple of minutes if I went to the bathroom or refilled my drink during the commercials in between while leaving the TV on and untouched) that was about that very situation and the parents of the girls were arguing over who he should be forced to "take responsibility" for and marry.
From the first few minutes it became apparent that it was the parents were arguing and nobody seemed to care what the people involved actually want.
Then again, I only saw the first few minutes before going "this is dumb" and changing the channel.

 

Even in states that allow gay marriage, a church that does not allow gay marriage won't allow you to marry. If you get married in a church, in a religious ceremony, you are typically engaging in a sacrement. There is a difference in having a religious wedding versus a secular one. In fact, it is freedom of religion that allows churchs to decide who they will and won't marry. But freedom of religion is a two-way street, churches are still bound by the rules the state imposes.

You have to adhere to whatever rulebook(s) the marrying authority(ies) use(s). States sets legal minimums that must be met for marriage to be allowed, be it in a church or by a justice of the peace. If you are getting married by a JoP, then that's the only rulebook you have to look at. Churches are free to place additional restrictions, but they aren't allowed to have a looser definition than the state.

Your argument that a Church should be able to do whatever it likes based on freedom of religion would open us up to huge problems. According to many religions, you become an adult in the eyes of the church long before the legal age of 18. There's usually a big ceremony associated with it. In many Christian religions, it's with Confirmation. In Judaism, it's with a Bar/Bat Mitzvah. Traditionally, these religions allowed people to get married upon reaching that threshold. But that doesn't mean you can say 14 year olds can get married based on freedom of religion. Same thing with gay marriage - if the state says it must be a man and a woman, a church can't do anything about that.

And just to clarify, I'm of the opinion that gay marriage should be legal, and I think that there are many legal arguments that can be made in support of it. However, freedom of religion isn't one them.

 

You seem to have missed a couple of points here.

1. It isn't about churches that don't allow gay marriage continuing to do that, it is about those churches barring smaller denominations that do or want to allow it in their own (the smaller denominations') churchs/temples.

2. The state efforts such as gay marriage bans were often pushed and/or supported by the larger denominations. So this arguably larger denominations using the state government to control activities of smaller and different denominations.

I never said that. Notice we aren't seeing a lot of efforts to have laws changed to marry 14 year olds.

The gay marriage bans specifically relate to people who would fit all the other requirements for being legally allowed to marry (at least 18, of sound mind, and so on).

I disagree and think you missed some of the details of what I wrote.

EDIT:

Oh, and let me point out that since states in the USA often give religious figures the legal ability to marry couples a pastor marrying 2 people is often both a religious and a legal ceremony (2 different aspects of 1 event).

 

Sorry, still confused. If you are a different denomination, you can make your own rules. If you are the same denomination, you have to abide by the rules of that denomination. A Catholic priest can't marry a gay couple even if he and his local parish support it. A large denomination can't ban a smaller denomination from performing a gay marriage - because they aren't the same denomination. Episcopals don't get to make the rules for Baptists.

OK, but then it goes back to following the laws the state has in place, irrespective of where the impetus of that law came from. Obviously, any gay marraige ban is supported by people who adhere to the traditional marriage of a man and a woman, and that would certainly apply to anyone directly involved in a religion that supports that. They still don't make the rules for the smaller denominations, and in fact those smaller denomination can hold a marriage ceremony for people of the same sex - it's just that the marriage won't be recognized by the state.

You see, this is where we're still disconnecting. There is a list of requirements in every state of who can and can't get married. If you fail to meet ANY of those requirements, you can't. That's why I used the under 18 argument. They meet all the other requirements EXCEPT they aren't 18. They can't get married. A gay couple meets all the legal requirements EXCEPT that they are the same sex. And they can't get married either. Why is it OK to exempt one requirement but not the others?

Exactly correct. But you are also correct in pointing out that this authority is conferred by the state. The religious figure has the authority to sign the marriage license, but typically he doesn't also have the authority to notarize it, which is what needs to happen for your marriage to be recognized by the state. The pastor/priest/rabbi/whatever signs the marriage license, but you still have to send it to your courthouse after you're married, and if you meet all the state requirments, they notarize it, making it official. If you don't, it doesn't get notarized, and regardless of what happened at your place of worship, the state doesn't recognize it.

 

I think age throws an interesting wrench in the cog here. In many states the age of consent is 16 -- so it's legal for a 40+ year old deviant to marry a 16 year old high school girl. (I just chose 40+ as a random number -- use whatever you want ... 25 ... 65 ... 102.)

IMO all hell is going to break loose when a 40+ year old person marries a 16 year old in a same sex marriage.

 

Even though the age of consent is 16 in most places, I'm pretty sure you still can't enter a legal marriage under 18. I mean, maybe with parental consent, but I think from a legal perspective a marriage is a form of a contract, which you can't enter into under 18.

 

Granted -- you don't think it would be a push button issue even though there was parental consent? Let alone the whole 16 year old having a sexual relationship with a much older same-sex person. Hetero relationships like that cause a bit of a stir.

 

Oh, I'm sure it would be a hot button issue. I'm just not sure it would happen all that often. I mean you hear about this stuff from time to time, but I've never actually met someone who got married under the age of 18 to someone who was much older than them. I know a couple people who got married right out of high school, but presumably they were both right around 18. And even though I know of several marriages where one the members are considerably older than the other - like 10+ years - none of those marriages happened when the younger one was under 18.

I'm wondering if we "hear" about stuff like this because it's so unusual. I mean, how disfunctional would a family have to be to agree to let their 16-year old kid get married in the first place? Does anyone think that sounds like a good idea? I don't think it would even sound good to most 16-year olds - a group not well known for their sound decision making skills. Of course perhaps it's just me. Does anyone know anyone who got married when they were younger than 18 to someone who was considerably older? And by considerably older, I'd say we need to go at least 10 years.

 

I've heard of marriages in 'olden times' of 16 year olds, but they were to other 16 year olds.

'Age of consent' refers to engaging in consensual sexual activity specifically btw, not marriageable age.