Is marriage for religious purposes only?

Mindonfire, I see your point because a month or so ago I might have actually agreed with you to a certain extent. However, beside the legalities involved in being married there really is no point except the ritual side of it. But really even that doesn't equal up to two cents if the people making the vows have no intentions on following through. So... again... no point. :wink:

hephzibah wrote:

Mindonfire, I see your point because a month or so ago I might have actually agreed with you to a certain extent. However, beside the legalities involved in being married there really is no point except the ritual side of it. But really even that doesn't equal up to two cents if the people making the vows have no intentions on following through. So... again... no point. :wink:

Now, ask yourself, if there is really no point to marriage, then why is it so badly coveted by homosexuals? If it is no point to it then no one should want it. People don't seek or fight for pointless things.

The ritualization of the breeding-pair bond played a huge, vital, causational part in bringing us to where we are today. Given the comparatively long gestation and maturation of human young, with the attendendant necessity of long-term care and nurturing, along with humankind's particularly developed senses of kinship and property, it is inconceivable society and thus civilization might have come about were there not to have been formally ritualized structure to the bonding of breeding pairs. Were humans as critters capable of achieving autonomous self-sufficiency within a few seasons of birthing, there would be no cause or reason for the development of society and hence civilization.

Going beyond that we arrive at today's quandry - given that pair bonding no longer need be associated with breeding and nurturing offspring - a luxury afforded exclusively via technologic advances (the cooperative labor of the entire community no longer is required to assure the survival of the community) - the issue now revolves entirely around property and other-than-kinship rights. Unfortunately, lost on many who press for expansion of such rights into the realm of non-breeding pairs is the fact that with all rights come certain obligations.

If humans 'evolved' as some suppose, isn't the inordinately long period of child bearing and nuturing into adulthood a distinct evolutionary DISadvantage?

How came humans to develop this disadvantageous trait when many other mammals have much shorter periods of nuturing into adulthood?

Evolution is supposed to favor those things which confer a 'survival advantage'. But the prolonged period of having to provide food, shelter and protection for human children is not an advantage to them.

Great argument, timber.

'You're here. So's society. Therefore both MUST HAVE evolved'.

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

The difference between rl's argument and science is that science is based on evidence and is the product of minds given to seeking, developing, testing, and confirmining rational answers to complex questions through the gathering, assessing, comparing, refining, and correllating of that evidence. rl' and crew come at it from "This fairytale makes me feel good about myself, so science is bunk". That, however sincerely it may be held and professed, amounts to institutionalized ignorance.

Now, ask yourself, if there is really no point to marriage, then why is it so badly coveted by homosexuals? If it is no point to it then no one should want it. People don't seek or fight for pointless things.

hephzibah wrote:

Mindonfire, I see your point because a month or so ago I might have actually agreed with you to a certain extent. However, beside the legalities involved in being married there really is no point except the ritual side of it. But really even that doesn't equal up to two cents if the people making the vows have no intentions on following through. So... again... no point. :wink:

Now, ask yourself, if there is really no point to marriage, then why is it so badly coveted by homosexuals? If it is no point to it then no one should want it. People don't seek or fight for pointless things.

timberlandko wrote:

The difference between rl's argument and science is that science is based on evidence and is the product of minds given to seeking, developing, testing, and confirmining rational answers to complex questions through the gathering, assessing, comparing, refining, and correllating of that evidence. rl' and crew come at it from "This fairytale makes me feel good about myself, so science is bunk". That, however sincerely it may be held and professed, amounts to institutionalized ignorance.

OK so what EVIDENCE (besides your circular argument already stated) do you have that tying down adult humans for EXTRA YEARS of child nuturing provided them with a 'survival advantage' ?

No evidence of a 'survival advantage' to the adults from prolonged nurturing of their young? Oh yeah 'Evolution works in mysterious ways.'

Just because we don't have any evidence of a 'survival advantage', or know how evolution works, we just know it MUST HAVE happened, right?

Mindonfire wrote:

hephzibah wrote:

Mindonfire, I see your point because a month or so ago I might have actually agreed with you to a certain extent. However, beside the legalities involved in being married there really is no point except the ritual side of it. But really even that doesn't equal up to two cents if the people making the vows have no intentions on following through. So... again... no point. :wink:

Now, ask yourself, if there is really no point to marriage, then why is it so badly coveted by homosexuals? If it is no point to it then no one should want it. People don't seek or fight for pointless things.

I have no doubt that every "social group" in this country would like to have the same "status" as every other "social group" within the society they are surrounded by. So what are homosexuals fighting for? The right for their lifestyle to be seen as acceptable within a nation that proclaims to be primarily "christian". Not marriage.

real life wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

The difference between rl's argument and science is that science is based on evidence and is the product of minds given to seeking, developing, testing, and confirmining rational answers to complex questions through the gathering, assessing, comparing, refining, and correllating of that evidence. rl' and crew come at it from "This fairytale makes me feel good about myself, so science is bunk". That, however sincerely it may be held and professed, amounts to institutionalized ignorance.

OK so what EVIDENCE (besides your circular argument already stated) do you have that tying down adult humans for EXTRA YEARS of child nuturing provided them with a 'survival advantage' ?

No evidence of a 'survival advantage' to the adults from prolonged nurturing of their young? Oh yeah 'Evolution works in mysterious ways.'

Just because we don't have any evidence of a 'survival advantage', or know how evolution works, we just know it MUST HAVE happened, right?

Strength in numbers.

Diversity of thought.

Passing down knowledge.

Helping hands.

It is well shown in biolgoy that the smarter the animal the more involvement there is from the parents and for longer periods of time. Check out dolphins, apes, etc.

Knowlege is the greatest evolutionary advantage.

Others would like to turn every child into a homosexual and bring hell on earth so that all of us may worship Satan and engage in anal sex with children and animals while jabbing a crucifix into our eyes while taking the lords name in vain.