Can someone explain to me how marriage is natural under any circumstances? Birds that "mate for life" generally cheat, most species which actually do (Orangutans, etc.) are going extinct and have a ridiculously slow birth rate, and to be honest it doesn't seem to be slowing ours any. But why bond two people together at all? What purpose does it serve? So you get a claim on their stuff? Of course, medical rights and such, but hey, those are just too good for gay people, why are they good enough for anyone at all? Why even have them? People ultimately die alone anyways, right? If it causes jealousy to have people sleep around, then better to decrease the surplus population. After all, many "stable" marriages end in divorce or murder because of adultery, why not just bring it out in the open, say it's around and admit it? 50% of all marriages in the US end in divorce. If your remote only worked 50% of the time, wouldn't you throw it out? If a plane took off or stayed in the air only 50% of the time, you'd be in trouble, right? Wouldn't even get on the ride, right? Also, how many guys have you met who would rather sleep around or have quick hook-ups or girlfriends than a life-long commitment to one person? I say we ban straight marriages and settle the whole damn thing.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 17 2009, 9:02 am by Vrael. Reason: Flaming

This started from a slight chance of a discussion developing to an outright rant.
...
But I agree with every word of it.

I don't think a comparison to animals is appropriate in this case. Marriage is the desire of spiritual stability, I think. Of course, not all people are suited for marriage, yet they still attempt it.

I imagine the moment of death (if I'm able to think at that moment) as the inner manifestation of all good and bad in a person. This moment cannot be shared with anyone; rather, it must be faced alone.

I cannot see how anyone can all such a marriage "stabile". If you're straining yourself and trying to hide your true motives, you should just get divorced.

It's all about settling down. When you're 20, your blood is boiling and you can't sit in one place for longer than 2 minutes. You grow older, let off some steam and the desire to explore is slowly replaced by the desire for stability.

It's a shame I forgot this wonderful quote that describes how I feel about stability; now I'll have to use my own words... Stability is unstabile for me, and instability is stabile. When you're stabile, the deeper the roots of your stability go, the more of a shock it will be when it ends. And it can end from many things: death of family members, serious injury, financial problems, etc. I'm scared of such fragile things. If you're constantly moving, you don't have a need to grab something that might break in the end. These are my views as of now. I've never been married, though.

But I can see where most people are coming from. You get emotionally exausted if you're constantly on the move. People somehow feel it, which is why they settle with a partner they don't mind in most cases. They use their weak love (or just an attraction, even) as an excuse not to venture on in life. This gives me an impression that most 'love' is just a tool to stop people from pursuing their true interests. The only love I'd want to accept is the one that is 'the love of my life'. I would gladly commit myself to a woman if I know that I will never love any other and that the harps of your souls sing in perfect harmony, and are both equally sophisticated. Any other commitment to a woman seems as betraying the bright possibilities of the future. Just like killing a man is killing everything he might have become, committing yourself to someone when you shouldn't have done that is decreasing the likelyhood of you finding a much better commitment in the future. If you're pessimistic about the future, go ahead and commit yourself to whoever you wake up with the next time you get laid.

The desire to commit yourself to something gives meaning to your life (or atleast an illusion of it). I cannot find what to commit myself to right now, which is why my life seems meaningless at the moment. If I don't find a meaning (atleast a short-term one, not the meaning) before I graduate, I'll probably either travel or put myself into a environment that imposes it's desired meaning onto my life (like an army or volunteering work). Although this is very close to what I've ranted about above: people getting married just for the sake of committing yourself to someone as soon as you can. It's the same short-term, unwise solution (only without a partner involved).

What is the wise solution then? Am I just doing the same thing only rejecting the possibility of a constant partner? Is it lonelyness or fear of people? Why do many people that fail at being husbands and wives do marry then and I don't want to? Maybe the answer lies deep in the vaults of the so-called 'spirituality'? Who knows.

OK, those are my raw, unfiltered thoughts.

You know, this was part of the other topic's discussion, right? This is basically a retred. Part of rockz point was to get rid of marriage altogether. And I'm not really sure this constitutes much of a topic for SD in the first place. I may end up closing this sooner rather than later, just a heads up.

Then I'll get my word in. I don't like marriage. I think it is a pointless tradition. Monogamy is important, but I don't feel marriage is an insurance towards it.

If I had my way, I'd never get married. Chances are my future girlfriend wouldn't be able to handle not being married.

Perhaps I should have worded my serious discussion better, and I apologize if it offended you to put marriage in quotes. It was more to show how marriage for same sex couples isn't really marriage currently, since most states don't recognize it, and according to most churches, it is necessary for a man and a woman to be married for a real marriage to occur. My goal was to offer a solution by leaving marriage up to the church, and civil unions up to the state. Chances are homosexual couples aren't religious, or at least not of the religious type which frowns upon gay marriage.

Gee, you're right, it's not natural, therefore it must be bad . Just like vaccines, shelters ("buildings"), scientific research, and cooperation amongst large groups of evil are unnatural and evil. Yes, that's sarcasm, I'm trying to work on that (although I'll admit, it took a bit of effort to come up with unnatural things that most people agree are good).
Claims on stuff and medical rights should not be involved in marriage. Marriage is and should be a completely religious ritual with NO "legal" influence whatsoever. I personally find it sort of odd that gays feel oppressed by religion and want to do what's natural to them, but at the same time they want a traditional (and "unnatural") marriage ceremony that's advocated by the religion that disapproves of their sexuality.
Oh, and to answer the "what is marriage for?" question, marriage developed as a guarantee for the wife that she and her kids will be provided for and a guarantee for the man that the offspring he raises will be his. Sure, a man could "sow his wild oats," but if every other man was doing so, he'd have no idea if the woman's pregnancy was from him or some other guy. Men didn't want to have to raise kids that weren't their own, and thus started marriage. Or, at least, that's what my books on sex taught me. After that, marriage apparently grew to have spiritual and religious signifigance.
The whole "surplus population" thing makes sense, but how do we decide who's surplus? I suppose you would just go after the people you don't like, ie, Christians (since they're anti-homosexual)?
Actually I wouldn't throw out that remote, I'd just keep it somewhere and buy a new one XD. But meh, I get the analogy. Thing about that 50% though is what I mentioned earlier - people were treating marriage like a legal contract when it's supposed to be a religious ceremony (that's really all it exists for these days, as women can provide for themselves and adultery will be commited anyways, thwarting both material benefits of monogamous union). Is it really a surprise, seeing American culture? American culture seems to focus a lot on beauty (NOT a long-lasting thing by a long shot) and money (NOT a good tool to build good relationships).
To be honest, this is one of the few weird/creepy questions that I don't ask . But as for me, I honestly don't see how sleeping around could possibly be fun. I suppose I'm rather feminine in my emotional taste (in fact, according to some of the books I've read, I have almost all of the traits of female relational desires and almost none of the male traits). SEX ISN'T FUN. I don't care what any people tell me, I've read books on it before - to be honest, the descriptions sound PAINFUL, not "pleasurable." And I've also been told by good sources that it's the same feeling you get while having a wet dream. I never felt anything particularly pleasurable (or noticable at all) while having a wet dream. And the whole idea that you can get pleasure from having your genitals rubbed is just plain... stupid. I've tried masturbation before. It doesn't work. It's the same feeling I get while having a wet dream. Nothing at all (and I can't make myself ejaculate by masturbating either).
So I don't see why a bunch of hookups is fun. I want LOVE. I want a nice girl who actually cares about me, who I know won't betray me for some other guy. There's not many people like that in America.

... hmm, maybe I went on about my sex life too much... should I delete all that?

Ooh, I wouldn't do that if I were you. Not only is that a direct violation of the whole "freedom of religion" thing, it'd make the Christians go NUTS. The thing about most Christians (particularly in America) is that they're passive. They don't actively go around talking about Christianity, they don't make religion a part of their every day life. But rather like sheep, when they hear "Christian," they think "good person." This is frequently taken advantage of in politics. Thing is, though, those "sheep" are gonna go INSANE if you make a move against Christianity.

Put shortly, if you ban straight marriage, you can expect a massive riot across America.

Also, I'm sick of you posting insults about non-gay ("homophobic") people. Sure, I can understand why it would irritate you to see that "Gay 'marriage'" thread. I can also understand why a lot of threads might aggravate a Christian, ie, me. Not so much on here (like I've said before, this is the most religious site I've been too XD), but on other forums, there's a lot of anti-Christian and anti-religion in general stuff we're expected to put up with.


To sum up all of the above (for those who were too lazy to read), I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I can't agree with your ideas.

EDIT: EXACTLY one of the things I was trying to say. If you can't understand what I'm trying to get at, this guy might be able to explain it to you .

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 17 2009, 2:15 am by Jesusfreak.

Well now.. IMO we aren't animals, and even if I thought we were animals, why would we be following the example of such unintelligent things.. I personally think marriage is sort of "outdated". I mean, in todays world, at least from what I hear from old people, is much different than the world of the past. In the past women had how much of a say? None. Women could own how much property? None. Marriage was a necessity to a woman's stability in life, so of course women became married. Also, in the past it seems that the average society was much much more conservative than the average society today. With that in mind, people in the past followed traditions and held a high respect for the rules. Nowadays, I see many people, like myself, with very little respect for authority and tradition. So of course marriages are ending in divorces, men and woman are both getting jobs and careers, and as such the parents aren't focused towards installing strong moral and ethical standards into their children, at least not as much as say.. When "A Doll's House" was written, by Henrik Ibsen. I think it would be a good time to half-quote the bible. Jesus at one point said that following the Sabbath was no longer needed, as why would you put new wine into an old wineskin? We are the new wine, our generation that is, and to many people marriage can be an old wineskin. If you aren't ready to care for someone more than yourself, and always choose what is best for this person despite yourself, you shouldn't be married.


For me the point isn't that gay marriages can't be loving, or authentic, I think it is wrong. Why do I think it is wrong? Because I personally choose to believe so. Now on a more serious note.. I think it is completely oppressive to deny someone to do something as harmless as getting married, just because you disagree with why that person is getting married. The bottom line is, THAT IS WRONG. Being gay or straight is only a personal preference, a CHOICE. Now what really stings when gays want to be married, is when they want to raise children.. As raising a child is directly influencing someone else's life, and that needs to be taken into consideration. I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that gays can't be married, because it would be terrible for a child to be raised in that environment. Why? Because it is inhuman, in my opinion. Now on a much less serious note: Therefor, I propose that gays NOT be allowed to raise children, and they can do whatever they want with their OWN LIVES, and leave the rest of us straight people alone.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 17 2009, 9:10 am by Vrael. Reason: removing response to flame

"There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses." http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

In the past marriage was not very religious. There is too much hype on this marriage ceremony. In Buddhism marriage is secular.


Explain why it (to be gay/gay's cant raise children) is wrong using philosophy or science (do not use religion)

Being gay is not a choice. It is like wisdom teeth (vestigial structures). You do not choose to have wisdom teeth or not, it is something you are born with.

Why can't I use religion. Who says religion isn't a valid way of knowing? Who says philosophy and science are always right, or the best way of knowing? If science is the only way to know, then how can you prove that science is the only way to know without using science, in order to avoid circular reasoning? And the same to philosphy. How about YOU tell me why it is OK for gays to be their gayness using... The noodlynoodle knowledge noodle way of knowing only noodleness.

Where is this vestigal gay structure..

I already told you here (pertaining to "Explain why it (to be gay/gay's cant raise children) is wrong") :

Oh and one more thing..
Budhism is a religion Johnny. Isn't it?

Prove that's a choice. Prove the huge STACK of ENDLESS paperwork that provides clear evidence that homosexuality is a choice. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that it is genetic._[1][2] What makes gays not suitable to raise children? There are THOUSANDS of heterosexual couples that should not be raising children in the slightest. Children raised in a gay environment often don't turn out gay; they turn out straight._[3] Why? Because it's GENETIC.

Take your homophobia elsewhere please.
1. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4529843&page=1
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
3. http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2004-03-09-gay-parents_x.htm

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 17 2009, 9:17 am by Vrael. Reason: flaming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_philosophy
"Buddhist philosophy deals extensively with problems in metaphysics, phenomenology, ethics, and epistemology."
"Buddhism can be regarded as either a practical philosophy or a belief-based religion."

It can be regarded as a religion or a philosophy.

Quote

Also, how many guys have you met who would rather sleep around or have quick hook-ups or girlfriends than a life-long commitment to one person?

Me, myself, and I. But then I don't tend to meet guys of an age that they are generally interested in stability.

JaFF's quote is really pure gold on this subject, so I will put it up again. It's that good:

Collapsable Box

Quote from JaFF

When you're stabile, the deeper the roots of your stability go, the more of a shock it will be when it ends. And it can end from many things: death of family members, serious injury, financial problems, etc. I'm scared of such fragile things. If you're constantly moving, you don't have a need to grab something that might break in the end. These are my views as of now. I've never been married, though.

But I can see where most people are coming from. You get emotionally exausted if you're constantly on the move. People somehow feel it, which is why they settle with a partner they don't mind in most cases. They use their weak love (or just an attraction, even) as an excuse not to venture on in life. This gives me an impression that most 'love' is just a tool to stop people from pursuing their true interests. The only love I'd want to accept is the one that is 'the love of my life'. I would gladly commit myself to a woman if I know that I will never love any other and that the harps of your souls sing in perfect harmony, and are both equally sophisticated. Any other commitment to a woman seems as betraying the bright possibilities of the future. Just like killing a man is killing everything he might have become, committing yourself to someone when you shouldn't have done that is decreasing the likelyhood of you finding a much better commitment in the future. If you're pessimistic about the future, go ahead and commit yourself to whoever you wake up with the next time you get laid.

The desire to commit yourself to something gives meaning to your life (or atleast an illusion of it). I cannot find what to commit myself to right now, which is why my life seems meaningless at the moment. If I don't find a meaning (atleast a short-term one, not the meaning) before I graduate, I'll probably either travel or put myself into a environment that imposes it's desired meaning onto my life (like an army or volunteering work). Although this is very close to what I've ranted about above: people getting married just for the sake of committing yourself to someone as soon as you can. It's the same short-term, unwise solution (only without a partner involved).

What is the wise solution then? Am I just doing the same thing only rejecting the possibility of a constant partner? Is it lonelyness or fear of people? Why do many people that fail at being husbands and wives do marry then and I don't want to? Maybe the answer lies deep in the vaults of the so-called 'spirituality'? Who knows.

Exactly as JaFF said, I think a lot of people in their late 20s are yearning for an end to wandering, and therefore settle for someone they don't really love. They might be able to get along at first, and have a mutual desire for stability (it helps if the guy has stable income/a house/etc.) In part, I blame society for encouraging hotheaded lust and a general ignorance of love that is so prevalent in men (and women) from puberty through college. Never given a chance to find true love, people are then settling for less as they approach middle age. So if I have advice, it is to reject the culture and society of today's youth. Not that my advice is going to percolate very far

I have another excellent insight into love and relationships saved in my random text file of crap, and I'll share it again:

Quote from Someone other than me (I lost the source long ago)

I believe the "secret" to long lasting love is "friendship", positive reinforcement, and a combination of social-economic bonding.

While friendship is usually understood, "positive reinforcement", and socio-economic bonding is often less so.

Friendship- Most understand this, but I will bring something up about it later.

Positive reinforcement- When you enjoy being with somebody your brain releases endorphins. Your brain will keep releasing them when you have a "positive" bond with a person. This is also clearly related to friendship.

Socio-economic bonding- Finances merge, dependencies forms, children are born, family ties are created, etc... These bonds can be hard to break. Attempting to break them can create major psychological stress. Maintaining them can be convenient and comforting in and of itself.

Of course I'm speaking in of "love" in a practical sense. Others prefer "love" to be vague and romanticized. But, in doing this, I think you lose the ability to grasp, understand, or possibly achieve what you claim to desire. You can make it a goal or feeling impossible to achieve or it something you can't understand when you possibly have it.

The problem with "love"

Love as it is defined, is often linked to and confused with sexual arousal and infatuation. Infatuation can be viewed as insidious and make "love" fickled and cheap indeed. There is also a kind of social deception and self-deception involved that adds between the blurring of infatuation and "love". That is using the term "love" as an EXCUSE for sex and pleasant misnomer for infatuation. It is also why the wise do not trust "cheap love" or the self-delusional.

"Mother nature" on the other hand, does not mind as children are still created whether you are in "love", infatuated, or sexually aroused.

These human physiological response fade over time. You become less sexually aroused and less sexually excited with the same person over time. It is a kind of boredom, but it is better not to see it as just mental boredom, but in terms of chemicals and hormones your body releases to stimulate your sexual response. However this is not all or nothing, it happens like a roller coaster of "ups" and "downs", and it can take weeks, months, or years to decrease to a significantly obvious or "dysfunctional" level. Also, separation from a sexual partner for various periods of time, can lead to an increase of sexual arousal when seeing them again (leading to more peaks and valleys).

However as infatuation fades, if the other 3 elements take hold (Friendship, positive reinforcement, socio-economic bonding), you have the makings of a possibly long term relationship than can be maintained "until death do you part".

When did "friendship" become a "bad word"? Can there be "love", without "friendship"?

True, a person can mean that a significant other is more than a "friend", but this should not discount friendship as an element of their bond. Without friendship, the relationship appears to have suspect motives and arguably can be very coercive and problematic. Hmmmm... Maybe that is also part of the reason that divorce rates are so high or "love" turns to "hate" so quickly. But then that also brings up the point of people and societies having to be honest about sex and enjoying sex, as oppose to mislabeling "love".

Something that is intriguing in the social games played in many industrialized societies, is people treating their "significant others" like antagonist. "He is not my friend, he is my boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife." As if you could not be both friend and husband. Interestingly, this can go for "lovers", as if they could not also be your "friend". This leads to questioning such thought processes, as it appear that one person is "using another" to achieve some goal. Be it sexual satisfaction, socio-economic, status, selective breeding, etc...

While socio-economic bonding and a fear of wandering will hold married couples together, the majority that lack friendship will naturally be falling apart. Sexual activity and enjoyment becomes secondary here; it is really something that can be enjoyed between any two people with the qualifications of love, within a reasonable range of physical endowment and fertility. Nature engineered sex to feel good.

But, back to the topic, marriage is not the problem. The failure of a growing majority of marriages is the result of this blight of society. Marriage itself fulfills two things (I exclude any religious aspects as any religious connotations of marriage are above and beyond the civil and emotional ones, and I am not religious).

(1) Marriage is a relationship status, and a declaration to the world. Marriage is expected to be eternal (almost no one gets married with the intention of getting a divorce), and is the next step in declaring to the world your matured relationship with your significant other. Regardless of whether there were an official marriage license, people would still mark themselves as "in a permanent relationship" if they felt that they wanted it. Just like there is no documentation for being "in a relationship" in the dating sense, there doesn't need to be documentation for some form of "marriage" to exist, so long as a couple plans on monogamy and mating for life.

(2) Marriage is a legal, civil benefit. When you are in such a relationship, it is only sensible to be entitled to certain legal rights pertaining to hospital visitation, taxation, and housing.

So no, we should not remove the institution of marriage. I think it is far more important to separate love and sex in the youth media and encourage a true understanding of relationships.

My, I seem to have been on a moral crusade lately.

Well yeah. I think it is wrong because I personally prefer that children are raised in a straight environment. I think gays are gross.. Really just a matter of personal preference here. Anyways, gravity is not really something that lies in the "grey area" of personal preference.

Well your overwhelming evidence didn't overwhelm me. How many boys have been born girly and turned out straight compared to this testimony? You don't have any definitive evidence from anything you cited. As about proving that it is a choice.. Well here I am, and at this moment I am choosing to be straight, and to not be gay. If I can choose to be straight, like I am right now, why would I not be able to choose to not be gay if I were gay? That's like saying I can't choose to be straight or not, even though RIGHT NOW I am choosing to be straight and not gay.. The point is, there is no gay gene that we know of, no gay vestigal structure that we know, no nothing besides speculation at this point.

Since I am at this moment choosing the be straight and choosing to not be gay, that's enough evidence for me to be convinced that people who are currently gay can choose not to be.

Now, whether or not you have a choice on which sex you are attracted to, you still have a choice to act upon the desires you are experience. Since you can choose to act upon what you feel or not, you WILL be responsible for your own choices.

Unless you want to say we don't have free will.. I can argue against that as well

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 17 2009, 5:48 am by CecilSunkure. Reason: Quote name typo

I think it's a quick argument that expecting people to act in a manner contrary to their sexual and/or emotional desires is cruel and unusual punishment. It's analogous to me saying you should act gay.