Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Bob, I really want to know your definition of gender because you believe marriage is between a man and a woman. In order to have that viewpoint, I believe you need to have a fairly solid idea on what constitutes a specific gender.

For me, I do not have a good enough definition of gender to base gender specific rules on who you can or cannot marry. What is more important? Genotype (XX, XY, XXY, XO etc)? Phenotype (observable characteristics like genitalia)? Is it the gender the person best identifies? Is it based on what the doctor and parents decide for their child when born with ambiguous genitalia?

I do not think these questions have absolute answers. Biology informs us that gender (like sexuality) is a diverse spectrum instead of a rigid dichotomy. There are women out there who are XY. Should they not be allowed to marry a man because they share too similar genotypes? (Not talking close cousins here but sex chromosome makeup).

For me, there is too much uncertainty out there to continue to make rigid distinctions. If you believe God created this wonderful experiment, I think you have to believe that God created the tremendous diversity we see. With that, he also must have created pretty darn ambiguous gender lines. What is the difference between a clitori s and a peni s? Not much actually. A dash of hormones at the right time. Lacking that, you have a problem on your hands if you want to put that person in a rigid category.

Why does close cousins matter? I thought the whole point of this discussion was that any two people that loved each other should be allowed to marry? Why discriminate against distance in a family tree, age, gender or the fact that one of them is already married to someone else? It's all about love and equality right?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Why does close cousins matter? I thought the whole point of this discussion was that any two people that loved each other should be allowed to marry? Why discriminate against distance in a family tree, age, gender or the fact that one of them is already married to someone else? It's all about love and equality right?

You mean like the adopted twin siblings in the UK that married each other?

[unofan]

Why does close cousins matter? I thought the whole point of this discussion was that any two people that loved each other should be allowed to marry? Why discriminate against distance in a family tree, age, gender or the fact that one of them is already married to someone else? It's all about love and equality right?

Go re-read the thread. Otherwise your strawmen may get worn out.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Why does close cousins matter? I thought the whole point of this discussion was that any two people that loved each other should be allowed to marry? Why discriminate against distance in a family tree, age, gender or the fact that one of them is already married to someone else? It's all about love and equality right?

I think you misunderstood. I was simply excluding close cousins to better qualify my statement about genetic makeup.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Why does close cousins matter? I thought the whole point of this discussion was that any two people that loved each other should be allowed to marry? Why discriminate against distance in a family tree, age, gender or the fact that one of them is already married to someone else? It's all about love and equality right?

I may be wrong but I also think this thread is mainly about gender restrictions to monogamous marriage. Although those other topics are interesting to discuss, it might be a topic for a different thread.

Family tree- Incest thread
Age- Consent law thread
one of them is already married to someone else- polygamy thread

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I may be wrong but I also think this thread is mainly about gender restrictions to monogamous marriage. Although those other topics are interesting to discuss, it might be a topic for a different thread.

Family tree- Incest thread
Age- Consent law thread
one of them is already married to someone else- polygamy thread

But for some reason all of those have to be lumped together. I don't know why, but that seems to be the "slope" some folks think we are on.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I may be wrong but I also think this thread is mainly about gender restrictions to monogamous marriage. Although those other topics are interesting to discuss, it might be a topic for a different thread.

Family tree- Incest thread
Age- Consent law thread
one of them is already married to someone else- polygamy thread

I'm not saying those things are right or wrong but when Minnesota passed their law allowing gay marriage all I saw on facebook was people claiming that "Finally any two people that love each other can get married" and that is obviously not true as I listed in my previous post.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I'm not saying those things are right or wrong but when Minnesota passed their law allowing gay marriage all I saw on facebook was people claiming that "Finally any two people that love each other can get married" and that is obviously not true as I listed in my previous post.

Oh but if you make that known, you're accused of being "obtuse".

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I'm not saying those things are right or wrong but when Minnesota passed their law allowing gay marriage all I saw on facebook was people claiming that "Finally any two people that love each other can get married" and that is obviously not true as I listed in my previous post.

I agree with your concern about that. I would argue (as would you I believe) that the term should be same sex marriage since there is no legal prerequisite of a certain sexual orientation.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Oh but if you make that known, you're accused of being "obtuse".

yes, the common response is "well duh, first cousins can't marry, why would allow that?" or something similar to the other questions and my thoughts always wonder to the fact that not that long ago people would respond the same way to same sex marriage. As I've stated before, I really have no problem with same sex marriage, personally I think all law should remove any language related to marriage and refer to all forms of marriage as civil unions for the sake of taxes, benefit eligibility, next of kin, etc. The government really has no business legislating marriage at all, it only has to because of our tax structure.

[FreshFish]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I also think this thread is mainly about gender restrictions to monogamous marriage. Although those other topics are interesting to discuss, it might be a topic for a different thread.

While that concept did help inspire the original impulse to start this thread, i also issued a clear invitation to discuss the state of monogamous heterosexual marriage as well.

Like many other people in this country, I was "married" in a civil union at the county courthouse, not in a "marriage" in the sacramental sense of the word. I was curious to hear others' perspectives on the state of "marriage" in general, be it BLT GLBT * or conventional. My background in systems theory indicated that there are two competing "models", one in which the focus is primarily on the couple, and the other in which the family is the primary focus.

I think poor people have been disproportionately harmed to a great degree by the rejection of the latter and the glamorization of the former.





* I am still really puzzled by the implications of two bi-sexuals marrying each other. Wouldn't they "require" a threesome by definition??

[FreshFish]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

personally I think all law should remove any language related to marriage and refer to all forms of marriage as civil unions for the sake of taxes, benefit eligibility, next of kin, etc. The government really has no business legislating marriage at all, it only has to because of our tax structure.

I'm not arguing with your concept; I merely think you have the order backward: our tax structure is frequently used to incentivize certain behaviors which are thought to be socially helpful or to disincentivize behaviors which are thought to be socially harmful. For much of our history, the family was the fundamental unit of society, and so tax structure evolved to incentivize family life.

As you noted in the part of your post I didn't quote, the idea that "family" would start out as anything other than a man marrying a woman just never occurred to people until the latter part of the 20th century (well, except for a few sects that allowed polygamy. weird though that "polygamy" always is one man with multiple wives and never the other way around. go figure. )

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

* I am still really puzzled by the implications of two bi-sexuals marrying each other. Wouldn't they "require" a threesome by definition??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

In general, bi-sexuality is used to describe individuals who have equal sexual attraction to either gender. It does not necessarily imply they have sex with both. A bi-sexual individual can easily be in a long term monogamous relationship.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Agree - but the way I read that is that "only" ~23% of the congregation was conservative (as understood within the context of this discussion) to begin with, and they've gone off to other, more conservative denominations or independent churches. I just don't see how a denomination would grow by aligning its beliefs with something that only 23% of its members really feel that strongly about. If only 23% of members feel that way, what percentage of the population can they hope to appeal to? So while only the conservative denominations may be growing (when compared to their own sizes in previous years), it may simply be because they're siphoning off the conservative members from a shrinking pool of people who are interested in organized religion at all. The conservative denominations who go around saying, "see, there's more water in our section of the pool than there used to be" are ignoring the fact that the overall pool is drying up.

It seems very analogous to the quandry the Republican party is in - losing members on both its left and right wings. Sure, the Tea Party movement has been "growing" (since it recently started from nothing!), but if the Rebuplican party suddenly shifted and aligned its platform 100% with the Tea Party, they would lose millions of moderate conservatives and would end up being about the size of the sum of the current Tea Party factions - well, okay, a bit bigger, of course, but certainly not as large as the current sum of the Tea Parties PLUS the current Republican party.

(and I appreciate the good discussion, too - thanks!)

The difference between this situation and the Republicans is that the Republicans need to be popular to get into office. The church should not be driven by any desire/need to be popular. Believe what you believe, regardless of whether others approve or not.

On the Episcopaleans, it's really a combination of factors. There has been some defections by conservative members, but I'd guess that the biggest thing at work is simply time. Episcopalean parish membership is very old, so their membership is simply dying off, and they aren't getting many young members (in spite of claims by them that embracing certain things will make them more acceptable in modern society and will fill their pews). I've seen numbers in the past and the average age is like 60 years or somewhere in that ballpark. Any organization with that demographic setup, absent some new big way of getting lots of young members quickly, will fade away as their membership gradually dies off.

[FreshFish]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

In general, bi-sexuality is used to describe individuals who have equal sexual attraction to either gender. It does not necessarily imply they have sex with both. A bi-sexual individual can easily be in a long term monogamous relationship.

not quite sure how well your choice of adverb fits ("easily"?) but otherwise your answer sounds superficially like the "advice" given to gays and lesbians 50 years ago: two gay men each marry two lesbians and all four share a house.