jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (125 posts)

Who Is Really Changing the "Definition" of Marriage?

  1. 0
    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8639540.jpg
    Until I began paying attention to religious and conservative secular perceptions of marriage I had no idea that marriage could be so easily debased by so many.

    To value marriage as a space entirely reserved  for sexual propagation of the species is, it seems, a debased sense of what marriage is; a stunningly primitive sense of marriage as nothing more than a space for sexual union and procreation rivaled only by the sense---again both religious and secular, that the purpose of human life is to reproduce human life.

    And so, who is really changing the meaning and definition of marriage: Advocates for same-sex marriage OR for marriage redefined as exclusively sexual and procreative?

    1. 0
      Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I didn't know there were a great deal of ppl that define marriage the way you have described.

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Honestly, I don't know anyone personally who does, but if you listen to those speaking a case against same-sex marriage, this is basically what you hear.

        It is quite appalling to listen and read exactly what opponents of same-sex marriage do have to say---and much of what they say is an endorsement of a debased sense of marriage; debased at least in terms of how most Americans would define their own marriages.

        1. 0
          Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Hmm. That's an interesting observation. Those ppl would be missing out on quite a bit if that was their sole interpretation for marriage.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly!

            It is interesting to me that even some religious and secular conservative ethicists who have entered into this debate also claim that marriage is about sexual union of male and female---infertile or not, because this particular form of sexual union is "procreative" by "design".

            I cannot think of a less ethical reason to marry than to engage in sex---even if one is making claims that such sexual engagement is definitively moral as it is potentially procreative.

            1. 0
              Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I suppose that would carry you into a whole different argument, namely individual's perspectives on the issue of homosexuality. Is that the topic you are actually wanting to discuss?

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                No...not really.

                I am really increasingly interested on how a debased notion of marriage underwrites religious and conservative arguments against same-sex marriage.

                1. 0
                  Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  As I said, I haven't really heard anyone espouse those views, which doesn't mean they aren't out there... there are probably 6 billion views in the world. I just imagine that the core of your subject is the basic principle of how one views homosexuality.

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    No actually, because those who support marriage as entirely for procreation do not support companionate heterosexual marriages as understood in contemporary society either.

                    For example:

                    http://www.frc.org/brochure/the-bibles- … and-family

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The funny thing about your statement is your qualification of your views. "Until I began paying attention to religious and conservative secular perceptions of marriage" has a connotation that there is only a religious slant that has authority to speak to your opinion. That because of that, a legal instrument could be introduced to replace the religious one is wrong to take its' place is foreign to the argument and tries to place validity once again towards that side of the argument. I really think the whole idea of marriage is to establish a relationship between two people who bond on a spiritual plain and wish others to respect their rights to continue with a societal acknowledgement (law). Thus their belongings. property and yes children are acknowledged and protected them from society in the event such a relationship is challenged by the state, any other individual or each other if you wish to get legally involved in it.

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Absolutely not. Religion and its definitions of anything (let alone marriage) are entirely irrelevant to me. My point is that while living in my secular bubble, I had little sense of the debased conservative religious view or "definition" of marriage that permeates marriage-related discourse. And then, I started paying attention.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I apologize for my misconstruing your statement. It sounded different then in your reply. Many confuse marriage as a definition by religion. The effort of the religious establishment is to liken it to a relationship shared with God and not one of the legality. My answer to that frame of thought is why does it have to be governed by mans court system and not taken to task with strictly the religious repercussions?

    3. 0
      Lybrahposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Deleted

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I think you made the OP's case.  Recognizing that you wish to force your religion onto others, a big part of the "reasoning" in your blurb is that people are "pluggable"; that is, marriage is mostly about sex.

        Of course that has zero to do with the LGBT crowd asking for the same right to love as you do, but it is a common reaction from the Christian far right.  As mentioned by the OP and repeated by you.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I could not agree more. To liken human beings and the complexities of affections and attractions that bring us to marriages---regardless of the sexual orientation of the partners in those marriages, to outlets and plugs does make my point that a Biblical or Christian or conservative definition of marriage distills and debases marriage to one space: sex.

          I find human beings reduced to outlets (females) and plugs (males) and marriage reduced to an conduit for sexual reproduction to be quite disgusting.

          And please excuse any terms that can be misconstrued as efforts at electrical wiring humor. They are purely unintentional...wink

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            As an electrician in another life, your comments might be construed as offensive.  Probably not as trades people are pretty rough around the edges anyway, but maybe. smile

            But not nearly as offensive as those in that blog.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              smile

          2. 0
            Lybrahposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It is not disgusting to think about humans like that; think about it, it is true.  The penis was made for the vagina!  That's that.  And I wasn't being offensive; I was just stating my right to  have an opinion that is different from yours.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              As far as I'm concerned, the idea that a penis and vagina determine what a marriage should be about isn't offensive, just silly.  The sexual act has little to do with marriage; marriage is and should be about love and to think otherwise denies marriage to a whole group of people that cannot perform the act.  A paraplegic, maybe, or quadriplegic could not marry by your requirements.

              The offensiveness comes with the idea that praying over a gay person can somehow "cure" them.  Impossible, as hundreds and hundreds of people can acclaim to - the same people have have received great psychological damage by people telling them they are "demon ridden" or hated by their God or some other foolish notion.  That you promote the same concept is offensive indeed; we have far, far too many cases showing the opposite to believe a myth from the mists of antiquity that says it is true.  To continue to propagate that old myth is irresponsible at best - considering the people that have been badly hurt by the concept and that we know there is no demon sitting in their brain it borders on evil.

              1. 0
                Lybrahposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                God created marriage as a gift between a man and a woman.  Two men together or two women together pervert that.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  God did not create marriage.  It is solely a human invention.  An invention that has had numerous forms through the millenia; that the current fad in the US is one man with one woman does not make it the only way or even the oldest way.

                  1. 0
                    Lybrahposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Who do you think created the humans?  You think we just "appeared" out of nowhere, or developed from monkeys?  Not so.

                  2. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    As a matter of fact, monogamous one man/one woman marriage isn't even the preferred marriage of your the Old Testament of your Bible!

            2. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Since you perceive no offensiveness in reducing human beings and marriage to sex and apparently appropriate plug-ins, then should one assume that you would also see no offensiveness in suggesting that people who are different from you---in terms of their sexuality, are demon-possessed?

              1. 0
                Lybrahposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I'm just going by what scripture says. I'm not making this up by myself.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Not everyone believes what "Scriptures" relate as truth. In fact, the Scriptures are inconsistent in their own claims as to what is the truth.

                  But, I guess this is what happens when---over hundreds of years, men (and probably some women) write assorted narratives and stories (some fiction, some fact, some an amalgam of fiction and fact; some philosophies, some rhetoric, some fable, some prescriptive) that are then collated---even more hundreds of years after the fact, by a group of bureaucrats seeking to reinforce the social and geopolitical authority of an emergent power.

                2. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Quote, please, where scripture says that demons enter the minds of newborns to turn them into homosexuals?

                  Saying things like this does not make them true, you know.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Not a damn place. I've read the bible several times. It's simply not in there. Jesus never said a word about homosexuality... it would have been odd if he had, since the word did not exist in any language then, but since he didn't... I'm gonna go with what Jesus said.

                3. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm wondering why you aren't posting threads about divorce? Why, again, aren't remarried couples possessed by demons?

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    At least during the divorce "process"---experience tells me almost all people in the process of a divorce are possessed by demons...wink

                4. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Scripture does not say that demons possess babies and make them gay.

                  I did a little research on this claim.

                  A similar claim was made by Pat Robertson.

                  Robertson claimed that demons cause homosexuality though it does not appear that he claimed babies were demon possessed and converted to homosexuality.

                  But, Robertson has also claimed that second-hand clothes may be demon-possessed, and therefore, before wearing them they should perhaps be exorcised.

                  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/26/p … ossession/

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/2 … 66810.html

                  1. 0
                    Lybrahposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    1 Corinthians 6:9-11
                    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

                5. 0
                  Deepes Mindposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm honestly curious about this. You said that the scriptures state that demons attach themselves to babies at birth and that is what makes them gay? When I read this, I searched different bibles including (in hardcover) my parallel bible which contains both the amplified version as well as the original KJV, also the NLJV, and my wife's NIV. Then I consulted my Bible app that has the original Greek and Hebrew translations along with a Strong's concordance and I was unable to find this information. Could you point a fellow Christian to those scriptures? Thanks

      2. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Your claim that "demons" attach themselves to the brains of homosexuals at birth is appalling and leaves me speechless, commentless.

        Your claim that one can "pray the gay away" would be amusing were it not so potentially destructive.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          OMG!  I didn't get that far - unbelievable!

          And you're right - such crap is incredibly destructive.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            OMG (!!!) is right.

            I have never before heard anyone claim that babies are possessed by demons at birth---demons designed to make them gay AND that this is why gay people claim to be born gay.

        2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I'm only half-possessed. I must have gotten a lazy demon. I'm too busy praying for the strength not to strangle bigots to worry about praying the bi away.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Oh yes...some of us are more possessed than others. Even demons, apparently, can not all be counted on to give 100% to an assigned task...wink

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Melissa got cheated, with a weak demon.  She should file a complaint with the PTB, although I'm not sure which one. smile

  2. Zelkiiro profile image83
    Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago

    If Conservatives are hell-bent to uphold the "traditional definition" of marriage, they sure as hell better be ready to uphold the traditional definition of divorce. And I, for one, would love nothing more than to see the horizon-blocking wall of corpses that were once divorcees killed in the name of God's law.

    1. 0
      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately, we are beginning to see conservative legislative efforts to change divorce laws in the US.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Depending on how far it went, that might be a good thing.  To all too many, marriage has become a game, something to play for a while and leave behind.  Leaving society to pick up the broken pieces of spouses and children.

 
working