Why the obsession with religiously-derived laws?

[Valgora]

When it comes to things like marriage, it is pretty arbitrary to say "Group X can only marry Group Y".

It isn't when when 'interaction ' between the two groups is the practical foundation for reproduction and healthy child-rearing.

At least, it's no more arbitrary than basing your entire concept of marriage around an emotion.

You don't need to be married to fuck and have a child.
You also don't need to be married to raise a child.

[Holy Tedalonia]

There's an issue. The Ethical definition was from a dictionary. So to up my case here's the moral definition.

Morality
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

What a shame Morality isn't what we're talking about. :^)

When you're talking about non-religious people having no morals it's different.

[Nocturnalis]

It isn't when when 'interaction ' between the two groups is the practical foundation for reproduction and healthy child-rearing.

At least, it's no more arbitrary than basing your entire concept of marriage around an emotion.

You don't need to be married to fuck and have a child.
You also don't need to be married to raise a child.

You don't (since reproduction is a physical activity not bound by human social structures), but it is the optimal condition for keeping families together and for raising children.

[Napkiraly]

It isn't when when 'interaction ' between the two groups is the practical foundation for reproduction and healthy child-rearing.

At least, it's no more arbitrary than basing your entire concept of marriage around an emotion.

You don't need to be married to fuck and have a child.
You also don't need to be married to raise a child.

Tbf it is better if they are at the very least in a committed relationship with plans to get married in the future.

[Vassenor]

When it comes to things like marriage, it is pretty arbitrary to say "Group X can only marry Group Y".

It isn't when when 'interaction ' between the two groups is the practical foundation for reproduction and healthy child-rearing.

At least, it's no more arbitrary than basing your entire concept of marriage around an emotion.

So if that's the purpose of marriage, should infertile individuals be banned from marrying people then?

[Nocturnalis]

It isn't when when 'interaction ' between the two groups is the practical foundation for reproduction and healthy child-rearing.

At least, it's no more arbitrary than basing your entire concept of marriage around an emotion.

So if that's the purpose of marriage, should infertile individuals be banned from marrying people then?

If the infertility or impotence is known beforehand, or if someone makes the ridiculous choice to give up their fertility, sure. If one marries then later finds out they are infertile or impotent, that should be (and used to be) grounds for annulment/divorce.

Ignoring, of course, that in this day and age infertility can be dealt with.

[Sovaal]

When it comes to things like marriage, it is pretty arbitrary to say "Group X can only marry Group Y".

It isn't when when 'interaction ' between the two groups is the practical foundation for reproduction and healthy child-rearing.

At least, it's no more arbitrary than basing your entire concept of marriage around an emotion.

Except that gays marrying doesn't really affect the breeding population all that much.

[The Parkus Empire]

People who can't fix themselves try to fix others.

[Oil exporting People]

Because it's evil when brown people do it, but great when white Christians do -- even though Christ was not white and was in fact(whispers) (((Christ))).
please don't hit me....

Are Jews a race or a religion?

[Albrenia]

Because it's evil when brown people do it, but great when white Christians do -- even though Christ was not white and was in fact(whispers) (((Christ))).
please don't hit me....

Are Jews a race or a religion?

They are both a religion and an ethnic group, I believe. Which means it is possible to be a person of Jewish ethnicity who is not Jewish religiously. Most other religions, particularly evangelical style ones which convert outsiders, are not an ethnic group but are a religion.

[Republic of the Cristo]

would you then be okay with laws that reach the same outcome as say religiously derived laws but from a secular standpoint? Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, that doesn't mean that laws cannot be passed by religious people for religious reasons. Christians want to be gay marrI age because it is a sin, but gay marriage is also illegal in Buddhist Japan. It is illegal there because it is seen as morally wrong to society and the family. Gay anything was banned in the sover union cause it was seen as bourgeois and decadent ( and we're suprisingly right ). So is your opposition simply from where these laws come from ( which if they are you need a serious look at your own beliefs and prejudices ) or are you concerned with their actual outcome?

[Albrenia]

would you then be okay with laws that reach the same outcome as say religiously derived laws but from a secular standpoint? Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, that doesn't mean that laws cannot be passed by religious people for religious reasons. Christians want to be gay marrI age because it is a sin, but gay marriage is also illegal in Buddhist Japan. It is illegal there because it is seen as morally wrong to society and the family. Gay anything was banned in the sover union cause it was seen as bourgeois and decadent ( and we're suprisingly right ). So is your opposition simply from where these laws come from ( which if they are you need a serious look at your own beliefs and prejudices ) or are you concerned with their actual outcome?

A bit of both really.

Secular laws can still suck, if their effects are bad. Religious laws just have the added downside of enforcing one particular religion's practises upon society as a whole.

[The Canadian Confederacy of Provinces]

Simply because those obsessed with religious laws are obsessed with their own religion; and thus everyone else is either wrong or a heretic/apostate/an evil-hedonistic-vile-non-person!

[Godular]

would you then be okay with laws that reach the same outcome as say religiously derived laws but from a secular standpoint? Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, that doesn't mean that laws cannot be passed by religious people for religious reasons. Christians want to be gay marrI age because it is a sin, but gay marriage is also illegal in Buddhist Japan. It is illegal there because it is seen as morally wrong to society and the family. Gay anything was banned in the sover union cause it was seen as bourgeois and decadent ( and we're suprisingly right ). So is your opposition simply from where these laws come from ( which if they are you need a serious look at your own beliefs and prejudices ) or are you concerned with their actual outcome?

It's illegal in Japan because it was a relic of the napoleonic code that the Japanese modeled their legal system around, not because they give much of a shit about any perceived 'moral issues'.

[Neanderthaland]

So if that's the purpose of marriage, should infertile individuals be banned from marrying people then?

If the infertility or impotence is known beforehand, or if someone makes the ridiculous choice to give up their fertility, sure. If one marries then later finds out they are infertile or impotent, that should be (and used to be) grounds for annulment/divorce.

Ignoring, of course, that in this day and age infertility can be dealt with.

Right, well that's just about all women over 50 whose marriages you just annulled.

[Republic of the Cristo]

would you then be okay with laws that reach the same outcome as say religiously derived laws but from a secular standpoint? Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, that doesn't mean that laws cannot be passed by religious people for religious reasons. Christians want to be gay marrI age because it is a sin, but gay marriage is also illegal in Buddhist Japan. It is illegal there because it is seen as morally wrong to society and the family. Gay anything was banned in the sover union cause it was seen as bourgeois and decadent ( and we're suprisingly right ). So is your opposition simply from where these laws come from ( which if they are you need a serious look at your own beliefs and prejudices ) or are you concerned with their actual outcome?

It's illegal in Japan because it was a relic of the napoleonic code that the Japanese modeled their legal system around, not because they give much of a shit about any perceived 'moral issues'.

Which doesn't explain why it is still illegal....

[Sovaal]

So if that's the purpose of marriage, should infertile individuals be banned from marrying people then?

If the infertility or impotence is known beforehand, or if someone makes the ridiculous choice to give up their fertility, sure. If one marries then later finds out they are infertile or impotent, that should be (and used to be) grounds for annulment/divorce.

Ignoring, of course, that in this day and age infertility can be dealt with.

Never knew that menopause could be reversed.

[Republic of the Cristo]

would you then be okay with laws that reach the same outcome as say religiously derived laws but from a secular standpoint? Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, that doesn't mean that laws cannot be passed by religious people for religious reasons. Christians want to be gay marrI age because it is a sin, but gay marriage is also illegal in Buddhist Japan. It is illegal there because it is seen as morally wrong to society and the family. Gay anything was banned in the sover union cause it was seen as bourgeois and decadent ( and we're suprisingly right ). So is your opposition simply from where these laws come from ( which if they are you need a serious look at your own beliefs and prejudices ) or are you concerned with their actual outcome?

A bit of both really.

Secular laws can still suck, if their effects are bad. Religious laws just have the added downside of enforcing one particular religion's practises upon society as a whole.

And what if say a Christian congressmen proposed a law which would help feed all malnourished children in america, but he is doing this because of his religious beliefs?

[Albrenia]

And what if say a Christian congressmen proposed a law which would help feed all malnourished children in america, but he is doing this because of his religious beliefs?

I'd be all for it, even if it handed out Bibles along with crucifix-shaped bread.

Some things are more important than others.

[Republic of the Cristo]

And what if say a Christian congressmen proposed a law which would help feed all malnourished children in america, but he is doing this because of his religious beliefs?

I'd be all for it, even if it handed out Bibles along with crucifix-shaped bread.

Some things are more important than others.

That would actually be a great marketing tool. But it should be noted, from where these laws and proposal's originate should not be a concern, only their effect upon society.

[Neanderthaland]

I'd be all for it, even if it handed out Bibles along with crucifix-shaped bread.

Some things are more important than others.

That would actually be a great marketing tool. But it should be noted, from where these laws and proposal's originate should not be a concern, only their effect upon society.

And the problem with religious laws, is that many religious people support them regardless of their effect upon society.

[Nocturnalis]

Never knew that menopause could be reversed.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2846089/reve ... e-ovaries/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... tile-eggs/

They're working on it, apparently.

[Luminesa]

It isn't when when 'interaction ' between the two groups is the practical foundation for reproduction and healthy child-rearing.

At least, it's no more arbitrary than basing your entire concept of marriage around an emotion.

So if that's the purpose of marriage, should infertile individuals be banned from marrying people then?

Canon Law to the rescue!

From Catholic Answers:

“Impotence refers to the inability to have sexual intercourse while infertility or sterility refers to the inability to procreate. For example, a healthy woman who has a hysterectomy is infertile but not impotent. In contrast, a woman who has a vagina that cannot accommodate the male member is impotent but she may still be able to become pregnant through illicit means like artificial insemination or IVF. This means she is not infertile even though she is impotent.

Paragraph 3 of canon 1084 makes it clear that the inability to produce offspring is not an impediment to marriage.[2] What is an impediment to marriage is the inability to have vaginal intercourse.”

A common misconception is that infertile people cannot get married. Impotent people are the ones who cannot get married, not infertile people. “Impotent” means, “I can’t have sex.” “Infertile” means “I can’t have kids.” So yes. Elderly infertile people can marry. However, if a person cannot have sex because of something up with their reproductive organs, then they cannot marry.

However, even this comes with some footnotes:

“Impotency is not an impediment if it can be treated with medication or items that allow intercourse to occur. But if it is untreatable (as well as antecedent and perpetual) it “nullifies marriage by its very nature” or it makes the marriage invalid.”

So if you’re on some medication and you cannot have sex for some reason, then you can still get married, provided there’s proof that the impotence was temporary or merely drug-induced.

[Godular]

It's illegal in Japan because it was a relic of the napoleonic code that the Japanese modeled their legal system around, not because they give much of a shit about any perceived 'moral issues'.

Which doesn't explain why it is still illegal....

Because they already recognize same-sex unions anyway, and nobody's gotten hot and bothered enough to start up what amounts to a legal appendectomy.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Which doesn't explain why it is still illegal....

Because they already recognize same-sex unions anyway, and nobody's gotten hot and bothered enough to start up what amounts to a legal appendectomy.

You mean like in germany? Majority of the pop wants gay marrage despite already having civil unions. This may seem odd to you, but Japan is for the most part still a conservative society - and thus traditions actually sort of mean something to them. Weird huh?