Post Reply
6 years ago  ::  Dec 20, 2007 - 6:51PM #1
MilesB
Posts: 4,304
Often an argument presented is "one man and one woman" and even stronger (though the culture of those who are in this religion is more tolerant) focus on the duality of the relationship between man and woman.

I was watching Joseph Campbell in "Power of Myth" and it came to me. We shouldn't contend this argument at all and instead agree to it. Most religions picture God, their faith, doctrine, etc on the Duality of the existence we live in. God/Creator/Faith though always runs into the Middle. Especially in Buddhism, Hinduism. This is the system we have placed before us and we live with in it. But one thing I must admit to is we wish to Rebel against this system and change what it is. While Joseph Campbell always made it a point to say to have our myths teach us how to Live In the system.

So it occurred to me, they're right. There is Man and Woman there is a duality. I won't argue this, however, those who fall in love with the same sex are also a duality to those who fall in love with the opposite sex. They are another aspect of the Duality we live in. This is why it exists in Nature. Without the duality of Hetero and Homo we take away what is Existence as we know it. The combination is the eptimone IMO. As God/Creator/Faith extends past the Duality of our world.

It was pointed out to God all things would be seen as Good. Though we, humanity, will always see what is good and bad. Take for instance Death; most of us associate it with Bad. Though, it is necessary and is suppose to bring us closer (usually in most faiths/myths) to God. What would God's general opinion of Death be? War?

Anyway, my point is. There is the association and it is true that Marriage, Love, etc exists between Man and Woman. But in our world, this would inevitably create the Opposite of that.

Thoughts?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 21, 2007 - 10:55AM #2
xequar
Posts: 662
This is an interesting philosophical concept...  I will agree that there is a certain duality to a male/female relationship, a sort of opposites attract kind of thing. 

However, I disagree with your assertion that, "There is the association and it is true that Marriage, Love, etc exists between Man and Woman. But in our world, this would inevitably create the Opposite of that."  "Our world," as you put it, would be one where men and women could still marry, thus leaving their world intact, but men could marry men, or women could marry women, et cetera.  One could assert that "their" world of ONLY men and women marrying is actually the antithesis of duality, since there is, in their view, only one proper type of marriage.

The only duality I can see in love is that there are two people involved in the relationship.  However, I tend to see love as a union, not a duality.  Although there are two people involved, once they begin to SHARE feelings for each other and enter into a relationship, at least some portion of the duality is lost. 

Personally, I also think we should let them have their man/woman/marriage argument.  In my view, marriage is nothing more than a religious construct, and as such, the government has no business handling marriages at all.  In my view, if two people want to be legally united, they would HAVE to go to a Justice of the Peace or equivalent and get a civil union.  This would apply to ANYONE wanting to marry, regardless of gender/sexuality/expression/whatever of the uniting partners.  If those legally united partners wanted to be "married," they could go to a church and have a ceremony.  However, if they did not go to the Justice of the Peace to be legally united, then the marriage would have NO LEGAL STANDING.  How's that for duality? ;)
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 21, 2007 - 11:41AM #3
MilesB
Posts: 4,304
"This is an interesting philosophical concept... "

Well firstly it's not really philosophical but based in Faith. I can see why you being a Christian would miss that point... but Yeah...

""Our world," as you put it, would be one where men and women could still marry, thus leaving their world intact, but men could marry men, or women could marry women, et cetera. One could assert that "their" world of ONLY men and women marrying is actually the antithesis of duality, since there is, in their view, only one proper type of marriage."

By our world I mean the Physical and Material. Spiritually all faiths preach and tell of the Great World (that of God) is perfect and therefore Duality exists as one. Time is the reason we see Duality in our play and if one looks at the garden of eden story as a Myth. The Apple is what releases ourselves into the Knowledge of God (that of Duality).

However, I will admit Christianity is one faith in particular that made it a point to rid itself of Duality by creating a sympton that Man is not Connected to Nature. Because of this basis you scoff at the "Nature" religions as if superior... this is not your fault. But I hope you understand calling someone's Faith "Philosophical" is funny. I wonder how you'd react to my calling Christ as Theory? I tried to stess in my first sentence this will not speak to Christians in particular. Judaism maybe...

Most other faiths, Shintoism, Hinduism, Buddhism (as it comes from Hinduism like Christianity comes from Judaism), my own American Indian Tradition (as well as many others), African Tradition, Aboriginal Tradition, Tao etc tell and speak of Duality. My principle is an argument towards those faiths.

My premise is based on the Faith of Duality and that if Marriage (union) is only between Man and Woman; should there not also exist the Duality that of Man and Man/Woman and Woman counter to that idealogy as well? Karma Sutra shows some extent to this idea as well. I don't think I am pioneering new frontier.

"The only duality I can see in love is that there are two people involved in the relationship."

Mmm the best visual I can tell you how I see love is the YinYang. A relationship that is built to be as One (like said in the Christian Marriage Vows). To create a Whole. So it would appear we don't "see" Marriage differently just what concepts and associations are different.

Though if a Whole is Man and Woman, would not its opposite Whole be Man and Man/Woman and Woman? In Galatians there it is said that with Christ and his Church; there is no Man or Woman. This emphasizes what I said earlier, that the Perfection is the Union of the Duality. And my point is that there is also a Perfect Union concerning Hetero and Homo relationships. Together we embody (we Humanity, That we are apart of a Greater Plan) the Union of Duality i.e. Perfection.

As to the Legal Argument. I have tackled that before and do so on the US Politics board from time to time. If one lives in a Government that tells individuals who can and can not enter into a contract to share property with one another; they live in a Tyranical Government. I am for Liberty and cast this tyranny away from me.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 21, 2007 - 12:58PM #4
xequar
Posts: 662
[QUOTE=MilesB;155617]"This is an interesting philosophical concept... "

Well firstly it's not really philosophical but based in Faith. I can see why you being a Christian would miss that point... but Yeah...

""Our world," as you put it, would be one where men and women could still marry, thus leaving their world intact, but men could marry men, or women could marry women, et cetera. One could assert that "their" world of ONLY men and women marrying is actually the antithesis of duality, since there is, in their view, only one proper type of marriage."

By our world I mean the Physical and Material. Spiritually all faiths preach and tell of the Great World (that of God) is perfect and therefore Duality exists as one. Time is the reason we see Duality in our play and if one looks at the garden of eden story as a Myth. The Apple is what releases ourselves into the Knowledge of God (that of Duality).

However, I will admit Christianity is one faith in particular that made it a point to rid itself of Duality by creating a sympton that Man is not Connected to Nature. Because of this basis you scoff at the "Nature" religions as if superior... this is not your fault. But I hope you understand calling someone's Faith "Philosophical" is funny. I wonder how you'd react to my calling Christ as Theory? I tried to stess in my first sentence this will not speak to Christians in particular. Judaism maybe...

Most other faiths, Shintoism, Hinduism, Buddhism (as it comes from Hinduism like Christianity comes from Judaism), my own American Indian Tradition (as well as many others), African Tradition, Aboriginal Tradition, Tao etc tell and speak of Duality. My principle is an argument towards those faiths.

My premise is based on the Faith of Duality and that if Marriage (union) is only between Man and Woman; should there not also exist the Duality that of Man and Man/Woman and Woman counter to that idealogy as well? Karma Sutra shows some extent to this idea as well. I don't think I am pioneering new frontier.

"The only duality I can see in love is that there are two people involved in the relationship."

Mmm the best visual I can tell you how I see love is the YinYang. A relationship that is built to be as One (like said in the Christian Marriage Vows). To create a Whole. So it would appear we don't "see" Marriage differently just what concepts and associations are different.

Though if a Whole is Man and Woman, would not its opposite Whole be Man and Man/Woman and Woman? In Galatians there it is said that with Christ and his Church; there is no Man or Woman. This emphasizes what I said earlier, that the Perfection is the Union of the Duality. And my point is that there is also a Perfect Union concerning Hetero and Homo relationships. Together we embody (we Humanity, That we are apart of a Greater Plan) the Union of Duality i.e. Perfection.

As to the Legal Argument. I have tackled that before and do so on the US Politics board from time to time. If one lives in a Government that tells individuals who can and can not enter into a contract to share property with one another; they live in a Tyranical Government. I am for Liberty and cast this tyranny away from me.[/QUOTE]Wait, hold on, WHAT?  When at any point did I say, imply, or express that I'm a christian?  I once was a christian, true.  I have since taken my own different spiritual path in life and no longer respect or acknowledge christianty, or any religion for that matter, as being the basis of my belief structure.  I'm not sure where you pulled "Christian" out of my post, but I'll thank you to not take meanings from my words that are not there and pander to me as though I were somehow beneath you again.  For the record, your post reads like you are anti-religion, as I am, and are attempting to make sense of their views of the world.  As such, it seems rather strange that despite the contents of my post that you somehow thought I was christian instead of someone who has patently rejected it.  I tend to actually respect the nature-based religions more simply because they're not trying to jam their ideals down my throat, and as such, I strive to return the favor.

Duality in many regards is another way of saying "opposites," as in opposite ends of a continuum.  Grand.  Some people use it as a tenet of their beliefs.  Again, grand.  The funny thing about continuums is that reality always lives somewhere on the continuum, usually somewhere in the middle.  And so it is an interesting supposition that gay relationships are the necessary opposites of straight ones, and I will openly admit that I had never given any iteration of a continuum with gay relationships and straight relationships both present any consideration.

Believing in universal balance as I do, I see a relationship as a unity, the balancing point of two people joining some portion of their essences into one entity.  The relationships that work are the ones that find balance.  The gender/sexuality/expression of the weights on either side of the scales makes absolutely no difference if they can find the balance point.  So yeah, I guess we do see relationships similarly, but we see the expression, associations, and termonology of those relationships differently. 

Like I said before, I disagree with the concept of marriage.  I understand that our legal system is designed to recognize the union of loving partners, currently in an incomplete and unjust fashion.  As such, the government should handle the details of the uniting (i.e. civil union via the Justice of the Peace) simply because they're also the ones making the laws.  If someone that believes in marriage wants to get married "in the eyes of god," then let them go to a church and have a ceremony and whatever.  That's their choice, and I don't have to agree with it.  This is why I say we should let the christians and the other religions out there that want marriage for themselves have it.  The trouble is when they start imposing it on me by denying the legal aspects of a union to me because of their... unique... perception of the universe.

And yes, I do stand by my use of the word "philosophical."  I don't see this as a faith question, but a philosophical one, and as such, I chose what I felt to be the appropriate word.  If this was insulting, I apologize.  Friends?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 21, 2007 - 1:02PM #5
MilesB
Posts: 4,304
Lol, I only skimmed your profile. I'm sorry. I have another board that kind of... distracts me... shall we say... Particular posters are rather quick and vocal... Anyway, this post is just in the meantime while I read your new post.

And yes Friends. More like Brothers/Family.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 21, 2007 - 1:10PM #6
MilesB
Posts: 4,304
"So yeah, I guess we do see relationships similarly, but we see the expression, associations, and termonology of those relationships differently."

I agree wholeheartedly actually. And this to me is expected as the Myths around the world hold very universal truths but... some myths only work for some people.

"Like I said before, I disagree with the concept of marriage."

The concept has changed so many times over that I believe I need to ask; what concept? In the 12th and 13th Century Marriage of love (Amor) was actually considered Heresay according to the Church.

"This is why I say we should let the christians and the other religions out there that want marriage for themselves have it.The trouble is when they start imposing it on me by denying the legal aspects of a union to me because of their... unique... perception of the universe."

Oh we totally agree here. I hate talking about this at work because everyone says my point makes sense but... they just don't seem motivated to not vote for the Ban or in some cases go along with it. It's like they admit my point is logically and rationally sound but their emotion on the matter outweighs all that. Sad really...

"And yes, I do stand by my use of the word "philosophical." I don't see this as a faith question, but a philosophical one, and as such, I chose what I felt to be the appropriate word. If this was insulting, I apologize. Friends?"

I suppose... but I still believe what I believe is real and not "abstract". I even looked up the word and yes it does fit the definition but... I really don't even like putting a Word to the way I live my life. Does that make sense?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 22, 2007 - 11:07PM #7
espiritus85
Posts: 134
Interesting thoughts that  have crossed my mind before - in particular something that xequar said.  I found my amused how bisexuality as a concept actually causes homo/hetero to be juxtaposed together, both as representative of monosexuality. In my observation, the reason "same" and "different" always intersect is because they can exist in dual ways - either as an object or as a method.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 24, 2007 - 1:36PM #8
xequar
Posts: 662
MilesB-Maybe it's just the fact that marriage is legally so unequal right now, but I guess I don't really see the whole need for all of the pomp and circumstance and legal structure and everything else that surrounds and is inherent within marriage.  I can totally agree with the actual ceremony because that is a bold statement of the love for each other that people feel.  Beyond that, I don't see why there has to be any special status or structure granted to the various loving relationships that exist. 

Does that make any sort of sense?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 30, 2007 - 10:22PM #9
MilesB
Posts: 4,304
[QUOTE=xequar;162529]MilesB-Maybe it's just the fact that marriage is legally so unequal right now, but I guess I don't really see the whole need for all of the pomp and circumstance and legal structure and everything else that surrounds and is inherent within marriage.  I can totally agree with the actual ceremony because that is a bold statement of the love for each other that people feel.  Beyond that, I don't see why there has to be any special status or structure granted to the various loving relationships that exist. 

Does that make any sort of sense?[/QUOTE]
It makes sense. Sorry I was in NY NY for Xmas, didn't get to reply sooner.
Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook