Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Actually, a woman has married a roller coaster. I put a link to it a while back.

How old was the roller coaster?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

How old was the roller coaster?

Never mind that, how did it say "I do"?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Never mind that, how did it say "I do"?

Sounds like we're talking about an arranged marriage! Hopefully roller coasters in the future will learn from this situation!

[Rover]

Uh, yah, lots of people have seriously wanted to marry a dog. The logical next step would be something like legalized polygamy, then we'd see where it goes from there. But, the logic of not being able to draw an "arbitrary" line has to play out to its logical conclusion. Particularly in the case of polygamy, assuming it only involves consenting adults.

Actually it affects more than the adults. Polygamy can lead to one man having 30 children. Few people can support that many kids, which is why most families are at 2.5 kids. Who gets to support those kids then? Why the taxpayers of course. As a marriage is sanctioned under the law, the govt that sets the law can decide what's in its interests. Obviously if one family wants to have that many kids on their own (those annoying Arkansas hicks the Duggars for example) that's their right but the state has a vested interest in not having a million Warren Jeffs running around trying to sire their own race behind the walls of a secret compound.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Actually it affects more than the adults. Polygamy can lead to one man having 30 children. Few people can support that many kids, which is why most families are at 2.5 kids. Who gets to support those kids then? Why the taxpayers of course. As a marriage is sanctioned under the law, the govt that sets the law can decide that's in its interests. Obviously if one family wants to have that many kids on their own (those annoying Arkansas hicks the Duggars for example) that's their right but the state has a vested interest in not having a million Warren Jeffs running around trying to sire their own race behind the walls of a secret compound.

Some men already have that many children. Ever seen the Maury show?

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Actually it affects more than the adults. Polygamy can lead to one man having 30 children. Few people can support that many kids, which is why most families are at 2.5 kids. Who gets to support those kids then? Why the taxpayers of course. As a marriage is sanctioned under the law, the govt that sets the law can decide what's in its interests. Obviously if one family wants to have that many kids on their own (those annoying Arkansas hicks the Duggars for example) that's their right but the state has a vested interest in not having a million Warren Jeffs running around trying to sire their own race behind the walls of a secret compound.

In case you didn't notice, people crazy enough to try to start their own race, behind the walls of their private compound don't give a flying **** about the laws of the United States of America.

[Priceless]

Some men already have that many children. Ever seen the Maury show?

nope.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Actually it affects more than the adults. Polygamy can lead to one man having 30 children. Few people can support that many kids, which is why most families are at 2.5 kids. Who gets to support those kids then? Why the taxpayers of course. As a marriage is sanctioned under the law, the govt that sets the law can decide what's in its interests. Obviously if one family wants to have that many kids on their own (those annoying Arkansas hicks the Duggars for example) that's their right but the state has a vested interest in not having a million Warren Jeffs running around trying to sire their own race behind the walls of a secret compound.

But if it's a right, then your concerns about taxpayer support and all shouldn't be able to impinge on it. We're talking about peoples' freedom to be who they are and all that after all, aren't we? Sounds awful big brotherish, but I guess that's ok with some people as long as big brother makes decisions they like.

It is a little entertaining to see folks who pushed for gay marriage arguing against allowing marriage and recognition for other non-traditional relationship structures.

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

We have abundance of laws (and rightfully so, obviously) that do not permit adults to engage in sexual activities with minors, be it of hetero or homosexual nature. What about the legalization (or lack thereof) of gay marriage in a given jurisdiction changes the consistency of those laws?

Not just sex. There are lots of arbitrary age cutoffs codified in law (drinking, voting, serving in office, etc). Bob's argument is "If we repleal Prohibition, then we'll have to let 4-year-olds have keggers just for the sake of consistency." Well, 80 years on, and we're still waiting for someone to propose a law to achieve that consistency - how long do you suppose we should wait, Bob?

Bob's argument is as nonsensical as if I came to the conclusion, "Since Bob thinks two men should not be allowed to marry, then to be consistent, he must believe that no one should be allowed to get married." Gay marriage proponents want to allow marriage for some, but not for all, just as gay marriage opponents want to outlaw marriage for some, but not for all.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

It is a little entertaining to see folks who pushed for gay marriage arguing against allowing marriage and recognition for other non-traditional relationship structures.

What standard are you getting said tradition from? How far do you go back? Who's culture?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

What standard are you getting said tradition from? How far do you go back? Who's culture?

I believe when BG says "traditional", he means between one adult man and one adult woman.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I believe when BG says "traditional", he means between one adult man and one adult woman.

But, as I have pointed out before, gender is not binary. Plus all of the other changes in the legal definition of marriage over our country's history.

[Rover]

But if it's a right, then your concerns about taxpayer support and all shouldn't be able to impinge on it. We're talking about peoples' freedom to be who they are and all that after all, aren't we? Sounds awful big brotherish, but I guess that's ok with some people as long as big brother makes decisions they like.

It is a little entertaining to see folks who pushed for gay marriage arguing against allowing marriage and recognition for other non-traditional relationship structures.

The govt and society define a right such as this. Much like how you can't get pulled over and hit 100 proof on the breathalizer test, but then tell the cop he's infringing upon your freedom to consume as much of a legal product (alchohol) as you please. It doesn't work that way. Society defines the rules, and the rules say no polygamy. This isn't a constitutional ban I don't believe mind you, so if opinions changed perhaps it could become legal in the US (unlike slavery for example which is expressly forbidden).

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

But, as I have pointed out before, gender is not binary. Plus all of the other changes in the legal definition of marriage over our country's history.

Are you referring to transsexuals? Or sex change operations? Or perhaps hermaphrodites (which are generally considered to be male because of the existence of Y)? What other definitions are you referring to?

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Are you referring to transsexuals? Or sex change operations? Or perhaps hermaphrodites (which are generally considered to be male because of the existence of Y)? What other definitions are you referring to?

From an earlier post:

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.