Non-Traditional Forms of Marriage

PDN

As a Christian I believe that marriage is something that takes place between a man and a woman. However, for many the rejection of a Christian-based morality opens the door to other forms of marriage (eg. between two men, or two women).

But where do we draw the line? If we dismiss gender as an arbitrary barrier to marriage, then why not dismiss species as well? Some of you may remember the case in Sudan where, in 2006, a man caught in a compromising position with a neighbour's goat was forced by the tribal elders to marry the beast. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4748292.stm

Sadly the goat has now died after attempting to eat a plastic bag, so the poor man is now a widower (although I do understand he still has custody of a kid).

What say ye? If we jettison the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman, then why not marry a goat? If we get rid of Bertie Ahern, do you think aggressive secularists will legalise such marriages in Ireland? Will this, in fact, prove to be one area where Athlone has been ahead of the times instead of behind the times? Are there any ethical barriers to such a union? Or will we just go by gut instinct and say that the whole concept is baaaaaaaaad?

[U]Disclaimer - added on 6/5/07[/U]

Please note that this post is an enquiry concerning the standards by which those who reject traditional morality would frame their ethics. As such, it is common to what might be discussed in any ethics class.

The reference to marrying a goat, although a true story, is intended to be humorous. The author of this post has never married a goat, does not intend to marry a goat, is not advocating marriage to goats, and is not intending to offend any of you who may have married a goat.

Please note that, while the poster expresses his own personal opinion of what constitutes marriage, he does not advocate the legal prohibitions of any kind of marriage in a secular state. The reference to Bertie Ahern is a joke and does not imply anything regarding the relationship of Church and State in this benighted little corner of Europe. If you have a preconceived stereotype of Christians as people who are trying to ban homosexual marriage and use silly arguments to support their prejudices, then please do not apply your fantasies to this poster who would prefer to be judged on the merits of what he himself says or does.

Nothing in the above post makes any attempt to equate bestiality to homosexuality. That would be a ludicrous comparison that this poster never has made, nor would ever dream of making. Anyone who maintains that they can read any such implication into the above post would be advised to institute legal action against the State since they have manifestly failed in their Constitutional obligation to provide you with an adequate education.

Any individual who tries to misrepresent what this poster has written should please not that this poster finds it offensive to be called a liar. Any individual who persists in such behaviour needs to be warned that I will pray to God that a giant pink dragon will swoop down on you while you are sleeping and suck all your blood out while shaking your miserable carcase from side to side. (Actually that last sentence is a joke. If you fail to take it as a joke then it should still not cause offence since this is an atheist and agnostic board and atheists and agnostics do not believe in God. Also I am a Christian, and Christians don't believe in giant pink dragons that suck people's blood out while shaking their miserable carcases from side to side. If indeed you do take this as a threat, and thereby get offended, I would suggest your legal action against the State's educational failure addresses your misunderstandings as to biology and the existence of giant pink dragons as well as your lamentable inability to understand the English language).

Crucifix

As far as I'm concerned, consent is the key.

PDN wrote:

although I do understand he still has custody of a kid

Fallen Seraph

Indeed, I would consider the standard to be "Consenting adults of sound mind". Which does kinda rule out the animals; if they could give clear consent that they knew what they were getting into then it's their business. But since animals can't particularly give clear consent it renders them illegible.

Nature Boy

I agree with the previous posts. Animals don't want to marry us. They tend to prefer their own species, and also tend not to tie themselves down to one partner. A man marrying a goat would mean that the man is the only party involved in the decision.

So, does that means that a man can marry also marry a human woman without her consent?

Hivemind187

You are assuming that the civil state of marriage is the same as the religious one.

In a secular society the institution of marriage is almost irrelevant save for a few things like tax breaks, last names and custody rights.

I'm a little offended that you see homosexuals or non-traditional families as equivalent to goats and that being a goat should somehow be a bad thing.

More importantly, if it its not your family unit why should you care? Why should you or your religious beliefs have ANY in put into the decisions other people make on how to live?

As for goat humping middle eastern zooaphiliacs, well, if someone could ask the goat how it felt about the situation and it saiud es then more power to them. But it cant. And as such we assume, for the benefit of the animal, that it is non-consensual and an abuse of the inherent position of trust a goat herd has over his flock.

Is this politically correct? No. Its not perfect. But its the best we can rationally do.

aidan24326

Nature Boy wrote:

So, does that means that a man can also marry a human woman without her consent?

I hope so. I'm sure Kelly Brooke and I will be very happy together!

Sangre

We're all a bunch of goat-fúcking atheists.

Nature Boy

Sangre wrote:

We're all a bunch of goat-fúcking atheists.

No no it's ok to fcuk goats, just not marry them

hairyheretic

As long as they're not harming anyone, what any two (or more ) consenting adults get up to is no ones business but their own.

The 'or more' I stuck in because I recall a story from Holland a year or two back about a man entering a civil partnership with two women, and polygamy does still occasionally come up in the news as well.

Polygamy may be best split off for another topic, but I suppose it could be seen as yet another non traditional form. Probably isn't going to be a common one any time soon, but given the changes in the last few decades, who knows what we'll be seeing 50 years from now.

Sangre

Why buy the goat when you can get the....milk for free?

Hivemind187

Sangre wrote:

Why buy the goat when you can get the....milk for free?

yuck ... goats milk.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

I'm a little offended that you see homosexuals or non-traditional families as equivalent to goats and that being a goat should somehow be a bad thing.

That's two false assumptions about me in one sentence. Are you trying mind-reading again, or just bad logic?

PDN

Crucifix wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, consent is the key.

Yes, consent does seem to be the common thread in most of the answers.

I admit that it must be hard to know when a goat is saying "No". For example, if this guy in the Sudan was particularly persistent in his advances, did the goat really consent or just reach the end of her tether?

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

That's two false assumptions about me in one sentence. Are you trying mind-reading again, or just bad logic?

Funny you focus on that rather than the argument at hand.

And by your own words "If we jettison the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman, then why not marry a goat?" - which suggest that the only reason we dont marry livestock is because the law says men&women only or it suggests that because you feel that way about not marrying homosexuals that their actions reduce them to the level of goats.

You made this suggestion by comparing the outcome of homosexual union to bestiality.

I am not suggesting you are illiberal enough to think that, but you did make the statement and it is an insulting one.

In keeping with your humour, "if you don' t ike homosexuals marrying - DONT MARRY ONE!"

Nature Boy

I don't really get what you're trying to say. Are you saying that if we allow same sex marraige then trans species marraige will follow?

PDN

Nature Boy wrote:

I don't really get what you're trying to say. Are you saying that if we allow same sex marraige then trans species marraige will follow?

I wasn't trying to say anything. I was asking questions to see where people draw the boundaries and why once you move outside traditional morality.

Crucifix

Nature Boy wrote:

Are you saying that if we allow same sex marraige then trans species marraige will follow?

A disaster of biblical proportions:
"dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!" - Dr. Peter Venkman

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

I wasn't trying to say anything. I was asking questions to see where people draw the boundaries and why once you move outside traditional morality.

You might have asked a question, but you also implied that legalising homosexual marriage would lead to people marrying goats.

Are you suprised that people are both confused and offended by this?

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

And by your own words "If we jettison the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman, then why not marry a goat?" - which suggest that the only reason we dont marry livestock is because the law says men&women only or it suggests that because you feel that way about not marrying homosexuals that their actions reduce them to the level of goats.

You really have a strange method of reasoning! My words do not imply what you say at all. I am asking if we reject gender as a barrier for marriage, then why not reject species as well? The matter of consent would appear to be a clear enough answer, which is what I was looking for.

In keeping with your humour, "if you don' t ike homosexuals marrying - DONT MARRY ONE!"

I'm all for homosexuals marrying. I think they should have the exact same rights as everyone else - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

You might have asked a question, but you also implied that legalising homosexual marriage would lead to people marrying goats.

Are you suprised that people are both confused and offended by this?

I implied no such thing. I asked if posters thought it might lead to it, that is a very different thing.

No, I am not surprised that people are confused and offended because I have been on boards.ie long enough to realise that some people have a poor grasp of language and a penchant for projecting their own presuppositions and predjudices onto those who hold a different faith stance.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

You really have a strange method of reasoning! My words do not imply what you say at all. I am asking if we reject gender as a barrier for marriage, then why not reject species as well? The matter of consent would appear to be a clear enough answer, which is what I was looking for.


I'm all for homosexuals marrying. I think they should have the exact same rights as everyone else - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

In that case you wont mind me saying that it is a deeply bigoted and interfering attitude you have there.

Your argument suggests that there is no difference between homosexuality or bestiality. That is closed minded.

Your argument is based on religious bias. Your religion.

Your argument also belies the desire to interfere in other people affairs. A kind of prurient interest in what other people put where and the right they have to do it.

I would suggest that you suffer from a similar obsession with sex as most religious people do and that your opposition to "gay-marriage" is based on the idea of homosexuality as a practice not being your cup of tea and a complete ignorance of other human beings and their capability to have an emotional investment in someone of the same gender as easily as they could have with someone of the opposite gender.

And before you get on your "its not natural" soap box like the rest of the close minded bigot-brigade homosexuality is not limited to human beings, it exists throughout nature and is observable in apes, dogs, dolphins, deer, cattle, horses and rodents.

Nature Boy

Hivemind187 wrote:

And before you get on your "its not natural" soap box like the rest of the close minded bigot-brigade homosexuality is not limited to human beings, it exists throughout nature and is observable in apes, dogs, dolphins, deer, cattle, horses and rodents.

Yeah my dog used to hump my cat. My dog and cat both being female coupled with the history between dogs and cats led me to be confused by the matter. But who are we to argue against nature ?

Hivemind187

Nature Boy wrote:

Yeah my dog used to hump my cat. My dog and cat both being female coupled with the history between dogs and cats led me to be confused by the matter. But who are we to argue against nature ?

lol ... Now thats a progressive relationship

Zillah

PDN wrote:

I'm all for homosexuals marrying. I think they should have the exact same rights as everyone else - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

This is such a short sighted comment. In one line you casually toss aside someone's right to marry someone they love. I am SO glad religion is slowly getting wiped out. Seriously, the vast majority of people in my generation are atheists or agnostics, and those that DO call themselves Catholics are hilariously ignorant about what that actually means. They don't go near the Bible, they think Vatican is a flavour of icecream and think "sin" is a nun only word.

But a bit more on topic. Your warped book-based morality aside, would you not agree that "consenting adult humans of sound mind" is not a good basis for marraige?

Sapien

PDN wrote:

I'm all for homosexuals marrying. I think they should have the exact same rights as everyone else - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Oh, that's terribly clever PDN. Gosh, you've got us there.

Oh wait. How about this. Everyone man should share a woman' right to marry a man, and vice versa.

The things one can do with language!

Fallen Seraph

PDN wrote:

I'm all for homosexuals marrying. I think they should have the exact same rights as everyone else - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I might join the quoting conga line and pose the question that if one accepts that there exist people in society who disagree with the word of the bible how can you argue that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed marry? Is it possible to argue against homosexuality in a secular environment? I honestly can't see how...

PDN

My goodness! We're all very poker-faced & politically correct today. Am I the only person who found the goat story funny?

Lighten up guys. I'm just messing with your heads a bit.

Actually I believe that homosexuals should have the right to have civil unions, with the same tax benefits inheritance rights etc as married couples. I also believe the same civil unions should be on offer to other, non-sexual, partnerships. For example, the Salvation Army has many more women clergy than men. Often you get two women who spend a life-time living and working together as ministry partners. They are best friends, share furniture, car etc., but in a non-sexual relationship. They, too, should be able to have their relationship recognised in a civil union. The same should apply to two maiden aunts living together, or a couple of bachelor brothers running a farm.

But marriage, for me, is between a man and a woman. And, while some of you may wish it otherwise, I have a perfect right to believe that and I don't see that my belief is harming anyone else or forcing anything on anyone.

Nature Boy

Ok. Care to explain why same sex marriage is wrong?

PDN

Zillah wrote:

This is such a short sighted comment. In one line you casually toss aside someone's right to marry someone they love. I am SO glad religion is slowly getting wiped out. Seriously, the vast majority of people in my generation are atheists or agnostics, and those that DO call themselves Catholics are hilariously ignorant about what that actually means. They don't go near the Bible, they think Vatican is a flavour of icecream and think "sin" is a nun only word.

But a bit more on topic. Your warped book-based morality aside, would you not agree that "consenting adult humans of sound mind" is not a good basis for marraige?

Well, I'm not a Catholic, so I'll have two Vatican cornets with a chocolate flake stuck in for good measure.

"Consenting adults of a sound mind" is an insufficient basis for marriage, in my opinion. For example, I would not be in favour of two people getting married, even if consenting and of a sound mind, if they are already each married to someone else.

By the way, your impression that religion is dying out is actually well wide of the mark. Fundamentalist Christianity and Islam are actually steadily increasing as a percentage of the world population (predominantly among younger people). Maybe you need to travel more?

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

In that case you wont mind me saying that it is a deeply bigoted and interfering attitude you have there.

I don't mind you saying that at all. I'm happy to know that there are people who hold different opinions to me, and I don't get offended by that fact at all. But I recognise that there are those who cannot tolerate anyone else having a different opinion.

Your argument suggests that there is no difference between homosexuality or bestiality. That is closed minded.

Your argument is based on religious bias. Your religion.

Er, I haven't actually advanced an argument. I asked a few questions. Are you really unable to differentiate between those two concepts?

Your argument also belies the desire to interfere in other people affairs. A kind of prurient interest in what other people put where and the right they have to do it.

Well, I don't think I was interfering in the guy's right to marry a goat. I did find it interesting and strange, funny even, but I don't think my interest is prurient in the slightest. I can assure you that the idea of bestiality arouses no feelings of lust or lasciviousness in me at all.

I would suggest that you suffer from a similar obsession with sex as most religious people do and that your opposition to "gay-marriage" is based on the idea of homosexuality as a practice not being your cup of tea and a complete ignorance of other human beings and their capability to have an emotional investment in someone of the same gender as easily as they could have with someone of the opposite gender.

Maybe when you are a bit older you will learn not to demonise those who hold different opinions to you. Personal abuse is no substitute for rational discussion.

And before you get on your "its not natural" soap box like the rest of the close minded bigot-brigade homosexuality is not limited to human beings, it exists throughout nature and is observable in apes, dogs, dolphins, deer, cattle, horses and rodents.

There you go trying to mind-read again. You really are extraordinarily bad at it. You have a stereotype of what a Christian is and what he believes, and then you project it onto me. You are way wide of the mark. Of course homosexuality occurs in nature. Why would I say otherwise?

However, I'm intrigued by your raising the issue of homosexuality being natural (since I certainly never raised it). Are you arguing that something is morally OK if it occurs in nature? If so, I'm going to sleep in a separate room tonight incase my wife eats me for supper. After all, it's natural. Spiders do it all the time after mating. (And please don't start claiming that I'm comparing homosexuals to spiders, because that would be an incredibly stupid way to twist my words - although very similar to the way you've twisted them already).

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Well, I'm not a Catholic, so I'll have two Vatican cornets with a chocolate flake stuck in for good measure.

"Consenting adults of a sound mind" is an insufficient basis for marriage, in my opinion. For example, I would not be in favour of two people getting married, even if consenting and of a sound mind, if they are already each married to someone else.

By the way, your impression that religion is dying out is actually well wide of the mark. Fundamentalist Christianity and Islam are actually steadily increasing as a percentage of the world population (predominantly among younger people). Maybe you need to travel more?

I'm not going to comment on the anti-catholic remark, I'll put that down to the usual "My god has a bigger d1ck that your god" p1ssing contest that usually starts between 2 different religious sects.

2) Nothing should prevent people having a permanent relationship with as many people as they see fit to. In fact there is a biological reason why this is a good thing genetic diversity and all. Bigamy is little more than religious stipulation that makes no sense logically.

3) I agree. There is a sinister pervasiveness in the growth of fundamentalism and religion in general. Perhaps we ought to organise a cull?

Lastly I would point out that asking us to "lighten up" is a little unfair when you started a thread you must have known was going to annoy and upset people and then compounded your error by using either poorly chosen or deliberately inflammatory words. While you have the right you your opinion we equally have the right to tell you what we think of your beliefs and your methods of expressing them.