|
Polygamy coming to Canada (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| starsearcher |
| quote: | Originally posted by j_spot
UofT, de sousa |
Ah ok I took the same course and I'm at Ryerson... :p
So far looks it's the same topics of dicussion...good luck! |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
The logical extension of this argument then is that impotent men or women who have had hysterectomies should not be allowed to marry either. Would you support this? |
No, because it's still a man and a woman. However, their marriage would be incomplete. Plus, those conditions are treatable and reversible. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by j_spot
Im taking philosophy of sexuality right now.
just read the symposium. in fact, ive got to go to class in about 10 minutes here. |
*cough* indoctrination *cough*
my god, no wonder society's going down the tubes.... |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
No, because it's still a man and a woman. However, their marriage would be incomplete. Plus, those conditions are treatable and reversible. |
Can't say I've ever heard of a woman having a uterus IMPLANTED, so no, not always treatable reversible.
So in this case, the marriage is as you say "incomplete" because they can't have kids, but you'd still be fine with it because it's a man and a woman.
How is a gay couple any more "incomplete" if they can't naturally have children? Furthermore, the possibility also exists for them to adopt / have a surrogate child.
The entire idea of a "marriage" is just a social construct, and what can be constructed can also be renovated or torn-down and rebuilt. |
|
|
| muzzybear |
Isn't there a group of Mormons in Vancouver that own so much land that the province turns a blind eye to their polygamy?
I saw it on a 20/20 once. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
How is a gay couple any more "incomplete" if they can't naturally have children? |
The infertile heterosexual couple is the exception, not the norm. In contrast, no gay couple could ever have children - it's impossible.
| quote: | | Furthermore, the possibility also exists for them to adopt / have a surrogate child. |
That should be illegal because it totally messes up the children. A child needs a father and a mother.
| quote: | | The entire idea of a "marriage" is just a social construct, and what can be constructed can also be renovated or torn-down and rebuilt. |
It's not at all a social contruct - it's a natural extension of sexual reproduction.
If we reproduced asexually like certain plants, your argument would be stronger. However, marriage as an institution that's based on the physical reality that we as humans face.
edit: that's not to say that culture doesn't affect the insitution at all - Hindus have their fire ceremony and Christians have their church rites - but at the end of the day, those are just two interpretations of the same institution. UNITY |
|
|
| muzzybear |
| God created Woman and gave her to the man (i'm not suggesting that a woman is a man's property - although there is a law where you can sue someone if they "steal" your partner). Moses had more than one wife because polygamy served a purpose: to increase the number of Jews at the time. Once Christ was here, he reiterated that marriage was for one man and one woman. Or a man could choose not to marry. But fornication, drunkedness, adultery and all that good stuff at 1 Corinthians 9:11-13 is bad. So sex outside of marriage is just as "wrong" as polygamy or getting drunk to drunkedness. It's not the person, it's the ACT. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by muzzybear
So sex outside of marriage is just as "wrong" as polygamy or getting drunk to drunkedness. It's not the person, it's the ACT. |
The difference is that marriage is an inherently PUBLIC institution which affects everyone. I am being forced to recognize unions that have no basis in natural law or our shared traditions.
In contrast, pre-marital sex (or homosexual sodomy for that matter) is a private act. I don't care what you do in your bedroom. You could argue that it has a public effect in the aggregate, but that's a weak argument. |
|
|
| walkindude |
Though polygamy is allowed in Islam..... the reason for it to be there was because.....during those times, after a war ended, wives whose husband died in the war would have support for themselves and their children. Even then, you had to get permission from your existing wife to take on another one...
Now a days, it’s rarely practiced, mostly in Arab countries by the rich and in rural areas where the whole village basically supports one another.
Culturally it is frowned upon by the middle class in every muslim country..and honestly guy...its difficult to handle one woman.. I cant imagine having to deal with 2!! give the guy a gun so he could shoot himself... no offence to the women on the forum... |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
The writings in the Bible can be twisted and construed to suit anyone's purposes.
Leviticus 14:33-55 states that if you have mold / mildew in your house, you must clean it and if it returns, you must tear down the house and take it outside the town.
How many people subscribe to this teaching?? Or is this a case where we can selectively pick and choose what we want to follow and what we don't want to? Can't have your cake and eat it too. |
|
|
| muzzybear |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
The difference is that marriage is an inherently PUBLIC institution which affects everyone. I am being forced to recognize unions that have no basis in natural law or our shared traditions.
In contrast, pre-marital sex (or homosexual sodomy for that matter) is a private act. I don't care what you do in your bedroom. You could argue that it has a public effect in the aggregate, but that's a weak argument. |
It's all PUBLIC in God's eyes. |
|
|
| muzzybear |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
The writings in the Bible can be twisted and construed to suit anyone's purposes.
Leviticus 14:33-55 states that if you have mold / mildew in your house, you must clean it and if it returns, you must tear down the house and take it outside the town.
How many people subscribe to this teaching?? Or is this a case where we can selectively pick and choose what we want to follow and what we don't want to? Can't have your cake and eat it too. |
The whole idea of "the Law" was to prepare us for the coming of the Christ. He's been here and has relesed us from the "burden" of the law. The Scribes and Pharasees (and orthodox jews today) wear "the law" on their foreheads (they were supposed to have it formost on their minds). That was a showy display of one's spirituality. And not correct either. |
|
|
|
|
