Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 22:03:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
368 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
>
> > The act of marriage is an expression of commitment and aknowledgment of a
> > moral truth that has been self-evident to the great majority of humanity
> > (through distance and the stretches of time) since humanity's intellectual
> > and moral faculties have been sufficiently developed to sufficiently
> > understand and apply the truth.
>
> The fact that you suggest the self-evidence of marriage indicates that you
> and I have two fundamentally divergent worldviews. That's fine, of course,
> but we need to recognize that certain issues are therefore insoluble between
> us, and this may be one of them.
Granted, but i'd be suprised if anything is ever solved in debate. Personally,
I prow around here because I enjoy a gentlemanly clash of arms and because I
think that it's fundamentally important to speak up about certain things.
For instance, cultural anthropology has
> identified countless examples of practices that have become institutions in
> order to preserve those parts of life that a culture deems necessary to
> protect longterm. Marriage is one of these; in its Classical Roman
> incarnation it can be identified with the protection of property rights and
> to prevent skewed lineage so that a man need not (presumably) worry if he is
> supporting another man's child. In any case, how far back does this
> self-evidence go?
The Roman example is merely a practical and reasonable application of the
marriage principle - Marriage does not (morally) have to be undertaken for the
most noble of reasons - it can be undertaken for reasons of passion, for example
- yet morality demands that the marriage contract (however a society chooses to
express it [within reasonable bounds]) be honored with fidelity. The marriage
concept does indeed have many incarnations; my argument, however, is not with
the particulars but with the principles. Indeed, marriage is really a type of
oath of faithfullness that is expressed in the contexts of romantic love;
marriage as such is not really the heart of the matter - rather, faithfullness,
duty, and commitment are the real absolutes, and marriage is the incarnation in
human society. Were we another type of creature altogether on a different
world, then the marriage principle would no doubt have a very different
appearance and application, but would nonetheless be the same in principle.
> Having said all that, I need to ask again: how would any of this make
> extramarital sex immoral? (Which it is not.)
I can't give you a water-tight reason; in fact, much of the reason will
fundamentally rest on my presupposition that we are created beings who engage in
a physical act of union that is of sacred and spiritual importance. From mere
biology alone I of course cannot support this position, yet I do offer you this:
Judge a tree by its fruits. The historic voice of humanity has attested that
much suffering has followed in the wake of promiscuity...suffering of the heart
and scarring of the conscience that has caused us as much harm as the diseases
that flourish.
> > Western, Eastern, Southern and Northern alike have understood the gravity of
> > marriage (as a permanent commitment between the betrothed, no matter the
> > custom or form of ceremony, and deity or state paid homage before) - it is a
> > moral understanding that has not faltered in its application amongst the
> > consensus of peoples and civilizations throughout known human history. I'd
> > say that the burden of proof is upon the man who would discard the great
> > experience and consensus of human history and say that marriage as such is
> > but a passing form of groundless insignificance.
>
> No more passing than any other human institution, and of no greater
> universal significance. I referred to the "current manifestation" of
> marriage (or something similar--I snipped that part by accident)
> deliberately. You seem to be saying that because we are able to identify
> similar characteristics of formally commited human relationships that
> marriage as a concept is humanity-wide, and I cannot agree with this because
> it's too broad a statement requiring too much glossing over of details. Is
> the lifelong betrothal of a US man and woman the same as in a country that
> places the woman entirely under the hegemony of the man? What about in
> cultures in which a man may have several wives? Are all these types of
> marriage the same simply because we in English can group them under the same
> word? Obviously you're not suggesting that all marriages are created equal,
> but these are real and essential cross-cultural differences that need to be
> addressed if we're asserting marriage as a basic human truth.
Again, I'm not arguing the particulars of marriage but the principle. Clearly,
I'd assert that some marriages are certainly closer to absolute moral standards
than others; some societies are closer to the mark than others, just as some
people have been closer to the mark of pure moral virtue than others. The fact
that moral behavior is often on a continuum does not compromise the fact that
the overwhelming consensus of humanity in human society regards the marriage
principle of public commitment to one's mate as a fundamentally important and
just act.
> > > If, on the other hand, "morally wrong" is self-evident in the universe, then
> > > marriage still has nothing to do with it because marriage is not self-
> > > evident in the universe.
> >
> > But is the application universally applied? That question can't be answered
> > unless we 1) verify whether or not intelligent life exists anywhere in the
> > universe outside of Earth (which would be impossible to ever fully know,
> > even if we contact a trillion other worlds.), and 2) Positively verify that
> > no creatures in the whole expanse of the universe recognize or understand the
> > importance of some sort of committed union amongst their kind. If we're
> > going to talk in terms of a universal level, let's not put our conclusions
> > ahead of our observations.
>
> Easy there, tiger! I meant "universal" in the figurative
> "every-human-on-the-planet" sense, not as it applies to Alpha Centauri and
> all points west.
> > Killing babies will never cease to be anything but Bad.
>
> I'm generally uncomfortable with absolutes, but I understand what you're
> saying. But let's not start that tired debate again.
Agreed, but the particulars of that debate are often unavoidably recalled if we
are to address these sorts of issues.
>
> > > or morals are an invention (in which case the rightness or wrongness of
> > > extramarital sex is only as permanent as the morality du jour).
> >
> > God help us if morality becomes du jour.
>
> Well, *somebody* help us, anyway.
Indeed.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) to (...) faithfullness, (...) It sounds like you are saying that the crux of the moral status of marriage comes from: fidelity, duty, and commitment. How does fidelity work in a culture which accepts polygamous marriage as the norm? Is the (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) The fact that you suggest the self-evidence of marriage indicates that you and I have two fundamentally divergent worldviews. That's fine, of course, but we need to recognize that certain issues are therefore insoluble between us, and this may (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
