FileFront Forums - Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)

- The Pub (http://forums.filefront.com/pub-578/)

- - Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other? (http://forums.filefront.com/pub/284339-do-you-jim-take-john-your-lawfully-wedded-something-other.html)

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

A male colleague of mine who is gay enlightened me to the difference between gay and queer – according to him, gay is being a respectable part of society, people know your gay, but you function like everyone else and use decency and taste when out in public like any normal heterosexual would (i.e. a polite kiss, holding hands, etc). Queer he says, are those who solicit just about every dude that happens to jog by them in the park while they rock out to Brittany Spear and cause social turbulence that gets the entire gay community spot lighted and ridiculed. Sounds logical, but hey what people do behind closed doors is no ones business, as long as it does not include children or animals – whatever.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper (Post 3376018)

Yup. Well, not exactly - it's not an "atheist ceremony", but still unrelated to religion. Species around the world ate long before humans and its mythology came about.

So you admit that your claim that it was "invented by atheists" is fantasy?

Quote:

I addressed the "atheist" part in my last post. And "unprovable"? Do you consider everything else in archeology "unprovable", too?

Nope. For example, we know certain religions were practiced at certain times, as we see the leftover artwork and literature. We know certain wars were fought at certain times, because of left-over bones and weapons. We know certain civilizations existed at certain times and places, because of leftover graves, tools, and ruins.

However, atheism is the ABSENCE of organized religion (Unless you count the ACLU :p ). You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that they DIDN'T HAVE a religion.

Quote:

You don't need to have been there to know what things were like.

Wrong. You can GUESS at what things were like.

Quote:

We know, for instance, that in ancient Rome, women were banned from watching athletics as the competitors were in the nude. We know that in Old Scandinavia, the great captains were buried with their ships. We know that in 1914, a horrific war was started by an assassination. How do we know this? Did we take a poll - "all Vikings, come forth and raise you hands if this is true"? Did we interview Romans who lived at the time? Did we ask the witnesses of the assassination who are still alive today for essays? Of course not. Archeology relies on historical records and excavations, not on interviewing people miraculously still alive today.

Only one problem - the inventors of the first marriages didn't have a written language. So we can only speculate.

Quote:

In fact, couldn't I turn the whole thing around and, by the same reasoning, claim it's "unprovable" that marriage was originally religious? Or do you have any interviews with marriage inventors to link to?

I'm not arrogant enough to think I know the unknowable. So no, I can't say if it was linked to religion or not originally.

I don't care if that fact can be "turned around" - that argument was YOURS in the first place, not mine - so you can only hurt your own position by saying that.

Quote:

You were guilty of poisoning the well by attacking the source instead of what it stated.

Stop throwing around accusations like an immature child for two seconds and LISTEN:

questioning the authority of a source is a basic form of arguing with it. Since it wasn't from a source I am familiar with, and it isn't a large, well known one - I am skeptical of its reliability. And its not poisoning the well.

However, calling it "poisoning the well" is childish namecalling.

Quote:

I don't watch Family Guy, so I had no way of knowing if it was a joke or more nonsense a la "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve":o.

Heh, who's "poisoning the well" now?:rolleyes:

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Yes, I do believe he made that up.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

So you admit that your claim that it was "invented by atheists" is fantasy?

My claim, once and for all, is that the earliest record of marriage details it as "having little to do with religion". In effect, a non-religious tradtion. Like eating.

In fact, my source also details when, exactly, marriage became a mythological celebration:

When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

Quote:

You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that they DIDN'T HAVE a religion.

Sounds good to me, as then the burden of proof is on you:smokin:. Prove that the inventors of the marriage institution invented it as a mythological ceremony.

Not that it matters anyhow. If marriage was originally a religious tradition, there's still no logical reason to disallow gay marriage. The best the opposition can do is quote selectively the portions of their favourite mythology that happens to favour their idea; appeal to tradition and culture; assume, without any evidence whatsoever, that divorce rates and the like are a direct result of homosexual marriage; assume, without any evidence whatsoever, that homosexuality is unnatural; and claim that because homosexuality is gross to them, it should be banned.

None of which, of course, is logical. And none of which is changed by the statement that marriage was originally religious.

Quote:

Wrong. You can GUESS at what things were like.

Making statements based on evidence is hardly "guessing". Archeology, as all other science, does not operate by "guessing" - it operates by testing evidence. No one "guessed" World War I happened. We know it from historical evidence. Archeologists did not "guess" that many Viking captains were buried with their ships, they know it as they've excavated burial ships with bodies and personal possessions in them. We didn't guess ancient man hunted with spears, we know it as we've found old spearpoints and observed cave paintings of hunters with spears.

Quote:

I don't care if that fact can be "turned around" - that argument was YOURS in the first place, not mine [...]

The argument that statements about the past can't be proven, only guessed at, was yours.

The argument that marriage was founded as a religious institution was Saquist's (I believe. Whatever the Heck - it certainly wasn't mine:D).

Quote:

questioning the authority of a source is a basic form of arguing with it.

You weren't "questioning the authority of it", you were calling it names.

Quote:

However, calling it "poisoning the well" is childish namecalling.

No more than accusing an opponent of ad hominem or non-sequitur fallacies. As a matter of fact, poisoning the well is ad hominem.

Quote:

Heh, who's "poisoning the well" now?

Certainly not me.

Poisoning the well (see above link) is to attack the source instead of what the source states (for example, by patronizingly calling a source "The Internet Guy"). I may be guilty of one thing or another by calling a statement "nonsense", but it's certainly not poisoning the well.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Sounds good to me, as then the burden of proof is on you. Prove that the inventors of the marriage institution invented it as a mythological ceremony.

Not that it matters anyhow. If marriage was originally a religious tradition, there's still no logical reason to disallow gay marriage. The best the opposition can do is quote selectively the portions of their favourite mythology that happens to favour their idea; appeal to tradition and culture; assume, without any evidence whatsoever, that divorce rates and the like are a direct result of homosexual marriage; assume, without any evidence whatsoever, that homosexuality is unnatural; and claim that because homosexuality is gross to them, it should be banned.

Theres no reason? I'm guessin that's because you find it convenent to just say so. If the bible tells us that marriage was an institution of God then I'm of course incline to believe if you can't tell me for certainty that marriage was an atheisic practice

Or even that it was started by atheist. Which frankly I dodn't believe existed at the time. All the peoples and tribes that I know of believe in a god.

I find your evassiveness pragmatic and your logic faulty.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper (Post 3377664)

When did religion become involved?

As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

If that's the case, then your source clearly doesn't have a clue. Religion has been involved in marriage for at least 4500 years, in the Hebrew tribe. And since the Hebrews were a typical tribal culture, it is a reasonable theory that this involvement was common.

Quote:

None of which, of course, is logical. And none of which is changed by the statement that marriage was originally religious.

You are hiding behind the cloak of "the reality based argument": you don't believe in religion, so you declare that your argument is inarguably more reasonable.

However the evidence suggests otherwise. Though gay unions have only existed for a short period of time in San Fransisco, I just read in a local newspaper that gays are filing for "divorces" in droves.

Quote:

Which is precisely my point. That method does not work in this case. Unless there is a written language in that society, there is no way to tell if they viewed marriage religiously. A few faded cave paintings and burried spear points cannot tell us this.

Quote:

The argument that statements about the past can't be proven, only guessed at, was yours.

Which is true. Photographs and living witnesses only go back a certain way. Reliable written histories become rarer and rarer as you go back in time.

Yet you believe that something must be true if an archeologist said it is true.

Quote:

You weren't "questioning the authority of it", you were calling it names.

No more than accusing an opponent of ad hominem or non-sequitur fallacies. As a matter of fact, poisoning the well is ad hominem

Poisoning the well (see above link) is to attack the source instead of what the source states (for example, by patronizingly calling a source "The Internet Guy"). I may be guilty of one thing or another by calling a statement "nonsense", but it's certainly not poisoning the well.

You're just evading the argument through foolish finger pointing and you know it.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Well, if what Machiavelli's Apprentice here says is true, about marriage being a common tribal practice, then it would have been a pagan practise as well. and just like how not everybody is christian today, undoubtedly there were people in the ancient world who were gaiaistic, who worshipped some local hero, or even just believed in good hard work. in that case, you would have quite a hard time proving marriage was not an atheistic practise.
And also, before you go asking me to prove that is atheistic, you can apply the reasoning for 'innocent until proven guilty' to this argument (I am willing to concede that this mantra is also applicable to the 'existence of god' debate, though I am a firm believer god does not exist).

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

The word you're looking for is multi (poly?)-theistic - AKA, practiced by many religions.

Atheism is the absence of religion. But since so many religions developed it, that's obviously not true.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

well, yes, multitheistic is the word.

And just because marriage is practised among religious peoples as part of their religions, does not mean that marriage is not an atheistic practise either. each religion and atheism can be thought of as a different faction - just because one faction has that practise does not mean that it is unique just to that faction. Religions all over the world celebrate unions between man and woman, and each is different in their own way. Atheists get married as well, so obviously it is also an atheistic practise, but it is not unique to atheism

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

atheism is new practice on the world scene...all tribes and cultures believed in the worship or reverence of something for more powerful than man himself.

The homosexual "culture" is new too. Yes practiced but it was not a culture untill the twentieth century. All these "cultures" which really aren't cultures in my estimation only....but a restructuring of the parameters we identify cultures and behaviorial groups-are so NEW we are struggling to find them a place for them.

As a result they are hodge-podging, splicing, and grafting cultures on to theres. This is also a first in history. In the past cultures grew out of the melding of customs in unions like marriage or concubines. Generations would pass before a considerable population grew to accept the new traditions.

and homosexulaits are not passing these traditions to the next generation. It's an operation a Frankenstein culture....grotesque and patched work with parts we recognized arranged in a frankly hideous fashion....