- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Sorry. I don't buy that all tradition is sacred. You thoughts on this are opinion, not fact.
Yes that is one of the biggest purposes of marriage as well as its place at the core of the family an important intermediate association between the state and the individual.
However as I said one must try and avoid naked functionalism. The ideological and tradition ideas behind marriage are very important because men do not live by function alone as important as it is. We must take care to preserve the fabric of ideational factors that partly make up marriage in our society as well as the functional ones and therefore change it cautiously and with the maximum amount of continuity with the old beliefs.
Not what I said far from it, that is a massive strawman.Sorry. I don't buy that all tradition is sacred. You thoughts on this are opinion, not fact.
Not what I said far from it, that is a massive strawman.
Tradition is simply the recognition of the complexity of society and the limits of the individual comprehension of society and the limits of individual faculties.
Your individual reason is limited and not a good judge for an entire society to be based on.
All I'm maintaining is that marriage while important for functional reasons is not supported by these alone and contains many ideational elements which can have latent functions and consequences we can't readily comprehend hence any change should be cautious and aim at continuity with the past.
I was refering to the way that the functionalism of marriage was being talked about without recognising that men and society don't operate on naked functionalism alone.Not a strawman at all. You mentioned tradition, I spoke in generalities, not in absolutes.
Indeed however society is extremely complex and institutions can have latent functions and their removal can have unintended consequences because the individual's reasons or even the reason of an entire generation cannot comprehend or know all the interdepedencies and interactions of society. Therefore one must be very careful in changing things, it must be done piecemeal and with a deep spirit of veneration for and continuity with the past.Tradition is a behavior or belief or set of customs that have been passed down from generation to generation. Traditions do not always ring true as time passes and often become obsolete.
As in your rationality, your ability to cognise the entire fabric of society with all its interactions and tangles of ideas, functions, roles, statuses, institutions, associations, authorities and so on.What individual reason is that?
Yes but keeping that continuity is a good way to try and create change while keeping as much of society that we don't want t change in tact.And I'm not saying anything different. Except that continuity with the past is not more important than recognizing different needs for the present.
I wasn't suggesting that, I support gay marriage cautiously.
One important conservative plank is too know society is so complex that we can't know what might go wrong if we do not stress continuity and are not cautious.
Captain Courtesy said:Firstly, this is not made up, it is one of the purposes that government supports and encourages marriage.
Secondly, you are still missing the point. I am not saying that this is the only reason government encourages marriage, nor am I saying that those who do not have children should not get married, or the government would prevent them from getting married. You are getting defensive for nothing. I am discussing the child-rearing position in the context of this discussion.
That is because institutions often have ideational factors beyond its function for society and these can be very important. Marriage helps to create children and to create the core of the important institution of the family but this kind of talk is not why the individual gets married, he does it mostly due to its ideational place within society as the cementment of love, union before god etc etc.
And whose thoughts are fact?Sorry. I don't buy that all tradition is sacred. You thoughts on this are opinion, not fact.
And whose thoughts are fact?
No what I'm saying is the place of an institution like marriage within any society does certainly have functional factors but it also has ideational ones which can have latent functions and whose removal may have unintended consequences hence caution and continuity should be stressed.Basically what you're saying is that people have individual biases based on their idealized expectations which may or may not have anything to do with reality.
A rational way? You claim to be slightly conservative and yet the politics of prescription which you decry is one of the most two or three key planks of conservatism. It is part of a general distrust of individual reason alone without the guide of prescription and tradition and the need for caution and continuity in reforming.Sorry, that's not a rational way to run a nation.
Mine of course. :mrgreen:
Seriously, it's about communication. When someone presents something in a factual way, when it is not, I feel it is my obligation, when I see it, to point it out.
And I'm not saying anything different.
And basically agree with it a few posts later?:mrgreen:
Presentation is key. I say this all the time.
I'm very good at presenting, or so I've been told......
I am not sure what you mean.I dunno, but the fact that heterosexuals are allowed to marry each other completely invalidates my relationship with my boyfriend and renders it absolutely meaningless.
I am not sure what you mean.
OK, but I've debunked your sample in post #192, so I'm not sure what water your position holds.
I am compartamentalizing the argument in order to go along with the parameters of the thread. However, you are correct in that there are numerous benefits to marriage that have nothing to do with child rearing. And I am uninterested in Loving or Skinner. You, yourself have said, many times that they do not pertain to the gay-marriage issue. Further, information shows that children reared in two-parent households, of any combination perform similarly, functionwise. Biology is not a prerequisite to this success.
OK, I stand corrected. You did present it as your opinion. And I showed how your opinion lacks foundation.
You stated this in the post I am quoting...I bolded the important part:
You are referring to procreation in marriage. This has been part of the argument, and continues to be.
The fallacy in your argument is that children brought up in families without both of their biological parents is inherently dysfunctional. This is not accurate. You have offered no evidence that this is true. Conversely, evidence shows that children brought up in two parent households for any configuration succeed, similarly. I have presented this evidence in several threads in the past, threads that you have participated in, Jerry.
I agree, that it is only part of the deal. And there are other reasons that have nothing to do with child rearing that would disqualify incest and polygamy.
The pro-gm position is about a combination of things, but I'm curious as to what you mean by "legitimizing the gay identity". Please explain.
How will gay marriage affect your marriage?
We have become civilized, more or less, most of us...And yet the human race survived for hundreds of thousands of years without marriage. Wonder how they did that :shock:
I mean... I wonder how people survive who AREN'T married. It boggles the mind.
And yet the human race survived for hundreds of thousands of years without marriage. Wonder how they did that :shock:
I mean... I wonder how people survive who AREN'T married. It boggles the mind.
I suppose if I shared your wish to eliminate one of a few social institutions which makes Man better then every other animal, and merly survive as oposed to dominate the planet, this would appear to be a relivent point.
But I don't, so it isn't.
Exactly how does marriage make man better than any other animal? Please explain this one in detail.
Marriage is but a religious institution
Then why can atheists get married?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?