Defending the God-Given Institution of Marriage

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Defending the God-Given Institution of Marriage

Post by _subgenius »

krose wrote:
MeDotOrg wrote:If marriage is a God-Given institution, isn't it logical to assume that only people who believe in God should be allowed to marry?

Or would want to.

interesting point...while many would claim that atheist and lgbt simply have the selfish attitude of wanting the civic benefits for themselves, they cannot deny that they really just want the social benefits...highlighting again the rather psychological deficiencies suffered by that lot.

So, selfishness being their only cause is not politically advantageous so they frame their "creepy cult" with the "just like you" and "equal rights" argument....when in fact they are not equal, nor ever will be.
Good and true science reveals that LGBT are not preferential, but rather they are psychological and evolutionary defects, and deficient in social mores.
Their crusade is reliant on pity and guilt...founded on regression and narcissism.

So, if marriage has no religious relevance or implication and it should be maintained as a civil construct - then why has it always been between a man and a woman? why has every modern society, and ancient one, always maintained an obvious biological imperative as a theme for marriage? what possible civic advantage does any society gain by endorsing and subsidizing "love"...monogamous love even?
The atheist surely cannot make an argument for love and surely cannot make an argument for government sanctioned love as an instrument for elitism...so why are they getting married?
The LGBT? they surely would recognize that doing away with marriage within government is really the problem, that is really the source of their forsaken position in life...but alas...they would rather be members of a club that does not want them...because for some distorted reasoning they truly believe that they need to be a part of that which they hate.
ironic indeed
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Defending the God-Given Institution of Marriage

Post by _subgenius »

EAllusion wrote:
honorentheos wrote:I'm pretty sure the white wedding dress is not derived from any religious tradition, but rather Queen Victoria's personal choice to wear one at her wedding spinning off into a fad that has become tradition. The religious assignment of meaning to the dress = virginity is a fairly recent addition. The white dress is a cultural thing, not religious in and of itself. Kind of like marriage...

He appears to also be making fun of the idea of atheists and gays being virgins upon marriage since they wouldn't care about that. Your post is spot on, but also its worth pointing out very few people in the USA are a virgin upon marriage. That statistics on that are staggering. It's less than 3%. So any difference between the likelihood of an atheist or gay person and a religious person being a virgin at their wedding is going to be trivial. Yet subgenius isn't having a chuckle about the thought of an evangelical wearing white on their wedding day even though their non-virginity rate is right beside the groups he's trying to crack a joke about.

It's weird that he's trying to subsume all ceremonial aspects of weddings as religious, even when their origin is likely secular in nature. I find it strange that he can't see why aspects of religious ceremonies cannot be re-purposed outside of their original context. Does he not have a Christmas tree? But I think most people understand that process.

Image

actually fairly simple....i live in America...though it once was never called that...everyone knows it as that today...been that way for a while and many believe that God wants it that way...now many Indians (casino Indians not convenient store Indians) would use the same xmas tree argument you are making with regards to America (heck, even my home state of Tennessee is a derivation of an Indian word)...but that argument would be equally meaningless.
So, the best you can hope for with your reasoning is that the LGBT has just showed up on the shores of marriage with ships full of small pox blankets.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_MeDotOrg
_Emeritus
Posts: 4761
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:29 pm

Re: Defending the God-Given Institution of Marriage

Post by _MeDotOrg »

subgenius wrote:Then we surely can apply your same reasoning found in the OP to the ironic nature of atheists and the lgbt using white wedding dresses, rings, vows, the kiss and countless other religious traditions in their ceremonies.

As for refuting your argument you have done it already.

Besides, your argument is a feeble attempt at confusing ones belief in God with ones membership in a church.

So i reiterate, that though a person believes that it is a divine law to not murder does not imply that they believe only "believers" should adhere to it.


Again, there is a difference between characterizing an argument and refuting an argument. Let me give you an example:

January 30, 1936
Reichsfuehrer Hitler’s Voelkischer Beobachter, chief organ of the Nazi Party, today assailed Prof. Albert Einstein, noted German scientist in exile in the United States, as “the apostle of Jewish physics.”
The newspaper attacked Dr. Einstein’s relativity theory as “nothing but artificial formulas based on irresponsible definitions.”
Declaring that German physics is based on actual experiment, the paper scored “Jewish physics” as having its basis in theoretical research.
Read more: http://www.jta.org/1936/01/30/archive/e ... z2Xnbawxcx


Calling Einstein's relativity theory 'Jewish Physics' or 'irresponsible' or 'artificial' were characterizations, not refutations.. And no, I'm not comparing you to Hitler. I picked this example because it is clear-cut.

Calling something 'obtuse' or 'poorly argued' or 'a blatant example of a loaded question' are characterizations, not refutations.

subgenius wrote:...while many would claim that atheist and lgbt simply have the selfish attitude of wanting the civic benefits for themselves, they cannot deny that they really just want the social benefits...highlighting again the rather psychological deficiencies suffered by that lot.


You've just agreed with the basic premise of my argument: If you believe that marriage is a God-given institution between a man and a woman, then BOTH LGBT and atheists are guilty of trespass on a God-given institution.

So my question remains: If you are truly concerned about defending marriage as a God-given institution, what legal remedies will you support to prohibit people who don't believe in God from marrying?
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization."
- Will Durant
"We've kept more promises than we've even made"
- Donald Trump
"Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Defending the God-Given Institution of Marriage

Post by _subgenius »

MeDotOrg wrote:
subgenius wrote:Then we surely can apply your same reasoning found in the OP to the ironic nature of atheists and the lgbt using white wedding dresses, rings, vows, the kiss and countless other religious traditions in their ceremonies.

As for refuting your argument you have done it already.

Besides, your argument is a feeble attempt at confusing ones belief in God with ones membership in a church.

So i reiterate, that though a person believes that it is a divine law to not murder does not imply that they believe only "believers" should adhere to it.


Again, there is a difference between characterizing an argument and refuting an argument. Let me give you an example:

January 30, 1936
Reichsfuehrer Hitler’s Voelkischer Beobachter, chief organ of the Nazi Party, today assailed Prof. Albert Einstein, noted German scientist in exile in the United States, as “the apostle of Jewish physics.”
The newspaper attacked Dr. Einstein’s relativity theory as “nothing but artificial formulas based on irresponsible definitions.”
Declaring that German physics is based on actual experiment, the paper scored “Jewish physics” as having its basis in theoretical research.
Read more: http://www.jta.org/1936/01/30/archive/e ... z2Xnbawxcx


Calling Einstein's relativity theory 'Jewish Physics' or 'irresponsible' or 'artificial' were characterizations, not refutations.. And no, I'm not comparing you to Hitler. I picked this example because it is clear-cut.

Calling something 'obtuse' or 'poorly argued' or 'a blatant example of a loaded question' are characterizations, not refutations.

then surely you noted where i never claimed to refute your argument at any point....i even sort of noted that you had not really provided an argument to refute in the first place.
I did offer valid criticism.

MeDotOrg wrote:
subgenius wrote:...while many would claim that atheist and lgbt simply have the selfish attitude of wanting the civic benefits for themselves, they cannot deny that they really just want the social benefits...highlighting again the rather psychological deficiencies suffered by that lot.


You've just agreed with the basic premise of my argument: If you believe that marriage is a God-given institution between a man and a woman, then BOTH LGBT and atheists are guilty of trespass on a God-given institution.

that is not basic or a premise to the OP ,nor is it a correct assertion.
i have stated that it was of a divine nature...you have stated that it was God-given...do not confuse my position with yours, mr. straw man.
and you are using trespass incorrectly. I would agree that SSM is an abomination to God, as it is translated from Tōʻēḇā.

MeDotOrg wrote:So my question remains: If you are truly concerned about defending marriage as a God-given institution, what legal remedies will you support to prohibit people who don't believe in God from marrying?

and my response remains the same.
Your question is absurd because it makes erroneous assumptions about the nature of marriage, the civic institution of marriage, and the religious implications.
There is but one legal course:
1. Maintain that marriage occurs between a man and a woman adheres to its Divine nature. Just because a couple does not belong to a church, believe in God, or practice any religion does not exempt them from compliance...by default they are adhering to the design, and arguably drawing nearer to God (knowingly or unknowingly).

This is the same as the murder example. Sure you can be an atheist and follow man's law about murder, but you are also (and in fact) following God's law about murder.
Likewise, a Christian does not disregard an atheist who murders someone because "its ok, he doesn't believe in God", but rather the condemnation is the same...and as with marriage, the absolution or exoneration is the same.

As i noted in responses to others above, don't you have some small pox blankets to attend to ?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_MeDotOrg
_Emeritus
Posts: 4761
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:29 pm

Re: Defending the God-Given Institution of Marriage

Post by _MeDotOrg »

subgenius wrote:.
Your question is absurd because it makes erroneous assumptions about the nature of marriage, the civic institution of marriage, and the religious implications.
There is but one legal course:
1. Maintain that marriage occurs between a man and a woman adheres to its Divine nature. Just because a couple does not belong to a church, believe in God, or practice any religion does not exempt them from compliance...by default they are adhering to the design, and arguably drawing nearer to God (knowingly or unknowingly).


So the 'divine nature' of of marriage allows heterosexual Satan worshipers to marry because ' by default they are adhering to the design, and arguably drawing nearer to God (knowingly or unknowingly)'? The divine nature of marriage is not tarnished by worshiping Satan, because at some point the couple might draw nearer to God? The divinity of your marriage is not defined by who you are and what you worship when you enter into the marriage, but rather what you might do sometime in the future?

And yet you say "i have stated that it was of a divine nature...you have stated that it was God-given...do not confuse my position with yours, mr. straw man."

Well at this point I must admit I am a bit confused. If the raison d'etre for allowing heterosexual Satan worshipers to marry is that they 'are arguably drawing nearer to God', could you please explain to me the difference between the divine nature of marriage and marriage being God-given?
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization."
- Will Durant
"We've kept more promises than we've even made"
- Donald Trump
"Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Defending the God-Given Institution of Marriage

Post by _honorentheos »

subgenius wrote:Then we surely can apply your same reasoning found in the OP to the ironic nature of atheists and the lgbt using white wedding dresses...
honorentheos wrote: ...(snip)...The white dress is a cultural thing...(snip)...

aside from being beside the point...exactly what is the "cultural thing" with a wedding gown in America? by "cultural" you really mean "symbolic"...

No, I don't. Culture in sociology refers to societal behaviors and beliefs. Symbolism falls under a culture’s norms. Tradition is another subset of norms, though there is an intersection here with values.
....while you would try to claim "cultural", most literate people realize that cultural is merely the flavor of tradition...

Do they, now? I’d be interested in seeing a poll of most literate people showing they share your view on the subsuming of culture into “the flavor of tradition”.
…for example, white dress versus red dress is cultural...wedding dress is tradition...it is a tradition of gender roles and a tradition of marriage...just as marriage is a tradition...a tradition of unification and a tradition of being between a man and a woman...
so yes....ironic.

It is ironic…given the OP is mocking the claim the defense of marriage is often linked to being a God-given institution, not human tradition.

Since you’ve just linked marriage to traditional features such as the white dress which have been shown to be changeable and have nothing to do with God in their origin what exactly are you trying to say? That you agree with the OP that the claim marriage is a God-given institution is poor reasoning?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Defending the God-Given Institution of Marriage

Post by _subgenius »

MeDotOrg wrote:
subgenius wrote:.
Your question is absurd because it makes erroneous assumptions about the nature of marriage, the civic institution of marriage, and the religious implications.
There is but one legal course:
1. Maintain that marriage occurs between a man and a woman adheres to its Divine nature. Just because a couple does not belong to a church, believe in God, or practice any religion does not exempt them from compliance...by default they are adhering to the design, and arguably drawing nearer to God (knowingly or unknowingly).


So the 'divine nature' of of marriage allows heterosexual Satan worshipers to marry because ' by default they are adhering to the design, and arguably drawing nearer to God (knowingly or unknowingly)'? The divine nature of marriage is not tarnished by worshiping Satan, because at some point the couple might draw nearer to God? The divinity of your marriage is not defined by who you are and what you worship when you enter into the marriage, but rather what you might do sometime in the future?

nope...i knew that if i typed slow you might get it...and you are getting closer....so i will type even slower.
If the same Satan worshipers choose to "not kill" in any particular circumstance then the same concept applies.
Notwithstanding the absurdity of your example.

MeDotOrg wrote:And yet you say "i have stated that it was of a divine nature...you have stated that it was God-given...do not confuse my position with yours, mr. straw man."

Well at this point I must admit I am a bit confused. If the raison d'etre for allowing heterosexual Satan worshipers to marry is that they 'are arguably drawing nearer to God', could you please explain to me the difference between the divine nature of marriage and marriage being God-given?

The difference is lost to your reason, so i am comfortable using your concept for the purposes of this discussion.
My response and criticism remains the same. My proposed legal remedy remains the same...and my assertions, having yet to receive response from or rebuttal from you, also remain the same.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Defending the God-Given Institution of Marriage

Post by _subgenius »

honorentheos wrote:No, I don't. Culture in sociology refers to societal behaviors and beliefs. Symbolism falls under a culture’s norms. Tradition is another subset of norms, though there is an intersection here with values.

yawn....then explain, still, what "belief" is being associate with the white wedding dress.

honorentheos wrote:
....while you would try to claim "cultural", most literate people realize that cultural is merely the flavor of tradition...

Do they, now? I’d be interested in seeing a poll of most literate people showing they share your view on the subsuming of culture into “the flavor of tradition”.

Poll?....are you stating that the majority opinion is what determines the reality/truth of this situation?

honorentheos wrote:
…for example, white dress versus red dress is cultural...wedding dress is tradition...it is a tradition of gender roles and a tradition of marriage...just as marriage is a tradition...a tradition of unification and a tradition of being between a man and a woman...
so yes....ironic.

It is ironic…given the OP is mocking the claim the defense of marriage is often linked to being a God-given institution, not human tradition.

yet you seem to be unaware of what that tradition is, or at least you are avoiding the implications as they are toxic to your position.
Either marriage is a tradition or it is not, correct? which one do you believe it is?

honorentheos wrote:Since you’ve just linked marriage to traditional features such as the white dress which have been shown to be changeable and have nothing to do with God in their origin what exactly are you trying to say? That you agree with the OP that the claim marriage is a God-given institution is poor reasoning?

nope.
but your feeble attempt to consider marriage as a tradition between a man and woman is amusing...perhaps that tradition evolved from marriage being between a man and rock, or a woman and a shoe?
at which case you are suggesting that marriage is what exactly?
The history of marriage, the design of marriage across culture, the execution and practice of marriage, is inextricably linked to gender roles and heterosexuality.
To argue otherwise is absurd...but feel free to try.....only to realize that you are bringing the small pox blankets on shore.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Defending the God-Given Institution of Marriage

Post by _EAllusion »

subgenius wrote:The history of marriage, the design of marriage across culture, the execution and practice of marriage, is inextricably linked to gender roles and heterosexuality.


This is simply historically false. There are several examples of homosexual marriage occurring in different times and cultures. Moreover, there's nothing about the design of marriage as a legal institution in the United States that should preclude it from same-sex couples. It is true that prohibitions on gay marriage have been common in various cultures in history, but marriage also has had a very strong tie to the notion of women as exchangeable property, yet you don't spend your time defending that as inextricably linked to what "traditional" marriage is.
_MeDotOrg
_Emeritus
Posts: 4761
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:29 pm

Re: Defending the God-Given Institution of Marriage

Post by _MeDotOrg »

subgenius wrote:1. Maintain that marriage occurs between a man and a woman adheres to its Divine nature. Just because a couple does not belong to a church, believe in God, or practice any religion does not exempt them from compliance...by default they are adhering to the design, and arguably drawing nearer to God (knowingly or unknowingly).


MeDotOrg wrote:.So the 'divine nature' of of marriage allows heterosexual Satan worshipers to marry because ' by default they are adhering to the design, and arguably drawing nearer to God (knowingly or unknowingly)'? The divine nature of marriage is not tarnished by worshiping Satan, because at some point the couple might draw nearer to God? The divinity of your marriage is not defined by who you are and what you worship when you enter into the marriage, but rather what you might do sometime in the future?


subgenius wrote:nope...i knew that if i typed slow you might get it...and you are getting closer....so i will type even slower.
If the same Satan worshipers choose to "not kill" in any particular circumstance then the same concept applies.
Notwithstanding the absurdity of your example.


subgenius wrote:And yet you say "i have stated that it was of a divine nature...you have stated that it was God-given...do not confuse my position with yours, mr. straw man."


MeDotOrg']Well at this point I must admit I am a bit confused. If the raison d'etre for allowing heterosexual Satan worshipers to marry is that they 'are arguably drawing nearer to God', could you please explain to me the difference between the divine nature of marriage and marriage being God-given?[/quote]

[quote="subgenius wrote:
The difference is lost to your reason, so i am comfortable using your concept for the purposes of this discussion.
My response and criticism remains the same. My proposed legal remedy remains the same...and my assertions, having yet to receive response from or rebuttal from you, also remain the same.


The difference is lost to my reason? How convenient for you. The easiest way to defend your position is to say it is lost to my reason. It saves you from actually having to advance a logical argument. The easiest way to not expose your reasoning to scrutiny is to hide your reasoning.

If you're uncomfortable with the phrase 'God-given', I would be happy to use the phrase 'Ordained by God', which is the description most commonly given in LDS literature. If you mean something different by 'divine nature' please summon the courage to say what you mean.

My argument remains the same: If marriage is an institution 'Ordained of God' or 'God-given' why shouldn't it be against the law for agnostics, atheists, Satan worshipers, Buddhists, or anyone who does not accept the definition of marriage as 'Ordained by God' to marry?

Marriage exists as both a secular and religious institution. No one is interfering with the rights of the Mormon Church not to marry homosexuals, just as no one interfered with the right of the church to allow black men to join the priesthood. We allow divorce in our society, even though Catholics (with rare exceptions) do not. But the Catholic Church is not forced to grant divorces.

As for your 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' argument: Yes, there is a religious command against murder. But are you claiming there are philosophies and cultures that have prohibited murder which have never heard of the Ten Commandments? Sorry, but the taboo against murder is not exclusive to traditional Judeo-Christian values.

Personally I would prefer to live next door to a homosexual Episcopalian couple than a heterosexual Satan worshiping couple. But because that is my preference does mean not it should be yours. If you want to believe that homosexual marriage is an abomination, that's your right. Just don't interfere with my right to hold different convictions. I just find it remarkable how tolerant this society is of heterosexual Satan Worshipers and how intolerant of homosexual Episcopalians or Reform Jews. It seems morally disingenuous.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization."
- Will Durant
"We've kept more promises than we've even made"
- Donald Trump
"Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land
Post Reply