Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[jeremyp]

Marriage is a constantly evolving social construct - there is no doubt of that.

Regarding definitions - I think it depends on whether you include those who can, and cannot avail themselves of marriage, within the definition or whether that is effectivity an eligibility element.

If you include the eligibility criteria you end up with a horrible clunky definition, even now when eligibility has been extended. So you'd end up with:

'A consensual loving and legally-binding commitment made in public between two people of sound mind who have not previously been married and/or have completed the process of divorce, who are over 18 (or over 16 with parental consent) and who are not close blood relatives or are an adoptive parent or child of their intended spouse or are an in-law depending on the circumstances.'

Sounds a bit clunky to me - in my mind better to separate the heart of what we consider marriage to be currently (what marriage is):

'A consensual loving and legally-binding commitment made in public between two people'

From the eligibility criteria (who can and cannot get married)

Whether you count it as part of the definition or not, it's clunky. That's laws for you - although I could reduce it a little bit by replacing "who have not previously been married and/or have completed the process of divorce" with "who are not already married".

Your definition doesn't cut the mustard either because marriages do not have to be loving to be valid. In some countries, they don't even have to be consensual.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your definition doesn't cut the mustard either because marriages do not have to be loving to be valid.

Marriages in the UK cannot be merely a contractual relationship - certainly for heterosexual couples, sexual activity is a requirement as non-consumation remains one of the reasons why a marriage can be declared void and annulled. Marriages of convenience can be declared sham or null.

In some countries, they don't even have to be consensual.

I was talking largely about the UK.

Out of interest which jurisdictions legally permit marriage without consent - there are plenty that allow arranged marriage, but that isn't the same as it being non-consensual (in theory at least).

[Spud]

Spud,

What the hell does that mean? Why not just treat him like you would any other person? Should a gay person treat you like he would any gay person? You really haven't thought this though have you.   

I have to work with him. I suspect he's gay, but I would rather not know so I haven't asked. I act as though he is straight.

[Spud]

Regarding Solomon, he married Pharaoh's daughter, the only comment being that this was part of an alliance. There is a comment about his 1000 other wives and concubines, which was so say that they turned his heart away from God. So it is clear that the author did not see his polygamy as a good thing.

[Roses]

Regarding Solomon, he married Pharaoh's daughter, the only comment being that this was part of an alliance. There is a comment about his 1000 other wives and concubines, which was so say that they turned his heart away from God. So it is clear that the author did not see his polygamy as a good thing.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm!

[ProfessorDavey]

I have to work with him. I suspect he's gay, but I would rather not know so I haven't asked. I act as though he is straight.

But Spud - you claimed he was a good friend. If that is the case, why on earth are you saying you have to work with him - surely if you are a friend, let alone a good friend, you'd be delighted to work with him, pleased to work with him etc.

And if he is a friend why are you treating him like someone he isn't - a genuine friend would never treat a gay friend as if they were heterosexual - nope, they would treat them as a gay person or it would be an irrelevant, likely the latter. But they's certainly know whether their good friend was gay or straight, married or not.

You are no friend of his if you'd rather not know that he is gay, rather not know that he is married, rather not know who his spouse is. And the person with the problem here is you Spud, not your supposed gay friend (although I suspect he may have a problem with you).

[Spud]

In Moses' time, Israel were simply told not to have homosexual relations and expected to obey, because they had experienced God first hand. When it comes to Paul writing to the Romans, he uses a concept they already understand when talking about sexuality - the argument from nature. He says that because mankind worshiped created things rather than their creator, God gave them over to both excessive lusts and unnatural desires. Homosexual desires are unnatural. Steve has already explained why, but to expand a bit, the man and the woman have different roles, in that the man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. Homosexual acts reverse those roles, so that men play the role of the female and vice versa. This is what makes the acts dishonoring, and thus, morally wrong.

But Spud - you claimed he was a good friend. If that is the case, why on earth are you saying you have to work with him - surely if you are a friend, let alone a good friend, you'd be delighted to work with him, pleased to work with him etc.

And if he is a friend why are you treating him like someone he isn't - a genuine friend would never treat a gay friend as if they were heterosexual - nope, they would treat them as a gay person or it would be an irrelevant, likely the latter. But they's certainly know whether their good friend was gay or straight, married or not.

You are no friend of his if you'd rather not know that he is gay, rather not know that he is married, rather not know who his spouse is. And the person with the problem here is you Spud, not your supposed gay friend (although I suspect he may have a problem with you).

I was concerned at first but decided not to mention sexuality. Consequently I have no idea who his partner is, but from what I can tell he is not straight. He has subsequently become what I'd class as a good friend.

[Owlswing]

In Moses' time, Israel were simply told not to have homosexual relations and expected to obey, because they had experienced God first hand. When it comes to Paul writing to the Romans, he uses a concept they already understand when talking about sexuality - the argument from nature. He says that because mankind worshiped created things rather than their creator, God gave them over to both excessive lusts and unnatural desires. Homosexual desires are unnatural. Steve has already explained why, but to expand a bit, the man and the woman have different roles, in that the man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. Homosexual acts reverse those roles, so that men play the role of the female and vice versa. This is what makes the acts dishonoring, and thus, morally wrong.

I was concerned at first but decided not to mention sexuality. Consequently I have no idea who his partner is, but from what I can tell he is not straight. He has subsequently become what I'd class as a good friend.

Goddess - I'd hate to be a BAD friend of yours!

[jeremyp]

Marriages in the UK cannot be merely a contractual relationship

That's exactly what they are.

certainly for heterosexual couples, sexual activity is a requirement as non-consumation remains one of the reasons why a marriage can be declared void and annulled.

That's an anachronism though. Lack of sexual intercourse is not a reason for having a same sex marriage annulled and it's not a reason to have a marriage annulled if sexual activity happened once but is no longer happening.

Out of interest which jurisdictions legally permit marriage without consent - there are plenty that allow arranged marriage, but that isn't the same as it being non-consensual (in theory at least).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_marriage

[jeremyp]

Regarding Solomon, he married Pharaoh's daughter, the only comment being that this was part of an alliance. There is a comment about his 1000 other wives and concubines, which was so say that they turned his heart away from God. So it is clear that the author did not see his polygamy as a good thing.

What about Abraham? Jacob?

[ProfessorDavey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_marriage

Yes - I read that too. It isn't clear about the distinction between countries where forced marriages are legal (what I asked) and where they are not legal but are prevalent, which is a different matter.

[Gordon]

I have to work with him. I suspect he's gay, but I would rather not know so I haven't asked. I act as though he is straight.

Sadly, I suspect you have no idea just how offensive and utterly stupid this statement of yours is.

[Roses]

In Moses' time, Israel were simply told not to have homosexual relations and expected to obey, because they had experienced God first hand. When it comes to Paul writing to the Romans, he uses a concept they already understand when talking about sexuality - the argument from nature. He says that because mankind worshiped created things rather than their creator, God gave them over to both excessive lusts and unnatural desires. Homosexual desires are unnatural. Steve has already explained why, but to expand a bit, the man and the woman have different roles, in that the man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. Homosexual acts reverse those roles, so that men play the role of the female and vice versa. This is what makes the acts dishonoring, and thus, morally wrong.

I was concerned at first but decided not to mention sexuality. Consequently I have no idea who his partner is, but from what I can tell he is not straight. He has subsequently become what I'd class as a good friend.

You are an unpleasant homophobic who uses the not so good book to support your bigotry.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I have to work with him. I suspect he's gay, but I would rather not know so I haven't asked. I act as though he is straight.

Dear God, which century are you living in? What on earth do you mean by "I act as though he is straight"? How the hell would you act differently if you were acting as if he were gay? Surely you'd treat him just as a person and his sexual preferences (that are nothing to do with you) would make no difference to that would they. Would they?     

[ProfessorDavey]

That's exactly what they are.

But they aren't because if they were sham marriages wouldn't exist as any two people could just enter into the contractual arrangement regardless of the reason. But you can't. While there is a presumption under the law that if a couple go through the ceremony that the marriage is valid, that can be challenged if the couple are just entering into a contractual arrangement that isn't what we might consider marriage - for example to obtain immigration status etc. The key point being that the two people have no intention of being spouses, which would typically be considered to be living together in a loving relationship that includes sex.

[jeremyp]

But they aren't because if they were sham marriages wouldn't exist as any two people could just enter into the contractual arrangement regardless of the reason. But you can't. While there is a presumption under the law that if a couple go through the ceremony that the marriage is valid, that can be challenged if the couple are just entering into a contractual arrangement that isn't what we might consider marriage - for example to obtain immigration status etc. The key point being that the two people have no intention of being spouses, which would typically be considered to be living together in a loving relationship that includes sex.

How are you defining a sham marriage? Are arranged marriages sham marriages?

[Aruntraveller]

I act as though he is straight.

Good to know.

I act as if every straight person I meet is gay. 

I'm putting a referral in to St Jude for you right now.

[ProfessorDavey]

How are you defining a sham marriage? Are arranged marriages sham marriages?

No arranged marriages are not necessarily sham marriages. It is perfectly possible for two people to consensually agree to an arranged marriage and agree to live as spouses - in other words sharing their lives in a relationship that includes a sexual element.

A sham marriage would be one where the two people sign the contract (for whatever reasons), but do not, at any time, live as spouses - in other words from day one living apart or living clearly distinct lives and not engaging in a sexual relationship. The most obvious reasons might be to allow one partner to gain a particular legal status as a 'spouse'. You've seen Green Card have you not!

The point being is that their is an expectation that the couple will attempt to live as spouses (even if ultimately they fail) for a marriage to be valid. So it is more than purely signing a contract if there is no attempt to fulfil those 'contractual' responsibilities.

[Spud]

What about Abraham? Jacob?

Hagar was Abraham's maidservant, he didn't marry her. Then he remarried when Sarah died. Jacob was tricked by Laban his uncle into marrying both Laban's daughters.

[Spud]

Spud,

Dear God, which century are you living in? What on earth do you mean by "I act as though he is straight"? How the hell would you act differently if you were acting as if he were gay? Surely you'd treat him just as a person and his sexual preferences (that are nothing to do with you) would make no difference to that would they. Would they?   

My work mate is not really important here. I am mainly interested in addressing the issue from a moral perspective. Btw, God is outside time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

My work mate is not really important here.

To the contrary. If you're going to make contemptible and unpleasant statements like "I treat him like a heterosexual" then you must expect to be criticised for it.

I am mainly interested in addressing the issue from a moral perspective.

What moral perspective? What on earth has someone else's sexual orientation go to to do with you, let alone with morality? 

Btw, God is outside time.

BTW you might want to trouble yourself with demonstrating the first two words of that ("God is") before presuming to tell us whether this god is inside or outside time (whatever that would mean).

[Nearly Sane]

Good to know.

I act as if every straight person I meet is gay. 

I'm putting a referral in to St Jude for you right now.

lol

[Nearly Sane]

My work mate is not really important here. I am mainly interested in addressing the issue from a moral perspective. Btw, God is outside time.

Fuck off and take your illogical thug god with you.

[Owlswing]

I have to work with him. I suspect he's gay, but I would rather not know so I haven't asked. I act as though he is straight.

You really are nastily two-faced when it suits you, aren't you?

[Owlswing]

My work mate is not really important here. I am mainly interested in addressing the issue from a moral perspective. Btw, God is outside time.

As he is gay, on this thread I would say that he is of primary importance, rather more so than your very (extremely? monumentally?) unpleasant God-inspired homophobia!

When are you planning on mating with this mate of yours?