Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[Priceless]

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

Marriage has always been one man-one woman for all of human history.

[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?

And as far as hermaphrodites, I would use the word intersex to describe them. Not for political correctness necessarily but because biologically, it is a more accurate description.

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

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Marriage has always been one man-one woman for all of human history.

Unless you're black and want to marry white

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

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.

Using the ends to justify the means again?

Is there actually any evidence of people being born with just Y chromosomes (whether 1 or more)?

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Using the ends to justify the means again?

Is there actually any evidence of people being born with just Y chromosomes (whether 1 or more)?

I would argue more like using reality to inform decisions. I am not sure where you got the idea of a single Y chromosome. I understand you are not medically trained so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume my phrasing was a bit confusing.

[French Rage]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Unless you're black and want to marry white

We have to use human history and what has been accepted as a guide to what is right. That's why heterosexual marriage allowing marriage between races should be the definition, as that has what it has been throughout human history, with human history defined as 1968 to 2013.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I would argue more like using reality to inform decisions. I am not sure where you got the idea of a single Y chromosome. I understand you are not medically trained so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume my phrasing was a bit confusing.

That's what could happen in your example women who are XY.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

That's what could happen in your example women who are XY.

In that case, they would not just have a Y chromosome as they would also have an X chromosome. YO genotypes are incompatible with life.

Individuals who are XY with androgen insensitivity will grow up phenotypically as a female. This can actually go undetected until an adult female is unable to conceive and seeks medical testing.

Additionally, there is a concept in biology known as mosaicism. Simply put, normally an individual has the same genetic makeup in all of their cells. In humans with mosaicism, somewhere in development, a precursor cell has a different genetic makeup (and every cell that comes from that precursor cell). Therefore, there are individuals who are XX for some cells and XO in other cells. Or XY in some cells and XO in others. Depending on the cells, these individuals could be anywhere on the spectrum of external genitalia.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

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

I'm ignoring your rabbit trails, which distract from how this applies to most, most, most people.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

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.

To help you, and narrow the rabbit trails, I'm talking about what types of marriage are allowed, or not for consenting adults.

The inconsistency is staggering. Expanding marriage to include gays is a fundamental right, but expanding it to include others, such a polygamists, is fine and dandy to not allow.

"no one should be allowed to get married"? What are you talking about?

If people had a shred of consistency, you'd have to support polygamous marriage for adults to the same extent you support it for homosexuals. Of course that would punch yet another hole in what is really little more than a popularity contest.

[Priceless]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I'm ignoring your rabbit trails, which distract from how this applies to most, most, most people.

No, it actually addresses a pretty important question. Whose definition of "traditional marriage" are you using? You aren't using anything from the Bible, as it was common for men to have many wives (and concubines on the side). You aren't using the "tradition" of using marriages as business transactions or a way to curry favor among the ruling class. So one has to wonder from where this idea of "traditional marriage" originates.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I'm ignoring your rabbit trails, which distract from how this applies to most, most, most people.

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births
Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births

Care to define most, most, most people?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

To help you, and narrow the rabbit trails, I'm talking about what types of marriage are allowed, or not for consenting adults.

The inconsistency is staggering. Expanding marriage to include gays is a fundamental right, but expanding it to include others, such a polygamists, is fine and dandy to not allow.

"no one should be allowed to get married"? What are you talking about?

If people had a shred of consistency, you'd have to support polygamous marriage for adults to the same extent you support it for homosexuals. Of course that would punch yet another hole in what is really little more than a popularity contest.

I don't think you answered the question. Why is it ok to limit marriage to 1 man 1 woman and not ok to limit it to two people? It's the same argument.

[French Rage]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

From a moral standpoint, I really don't give the slightest crap if people who are not me decide to have a polygamous marriage, as it effects me in no way whatsoever. Yes I suppose they are more likely to shoot out more kids, but frankly they could do that in a two-person marriage, as the Duggars show, or they could easily do it out of marriage, as Shawn Kemp shows, so pretending I'm avoiding that result by outlawing polygamous marriage seems naive.

From a legal standpoint, codifying the contracts between people in a polygamous marriage gets a little more complicated, as it is no longer two people. So I don't know how easy it or viable it would be to get things set up there. But really, in the end, if people want to do that, really what the hell do I care?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I don't think you answered the question. Why is it ok to limit marriage to 1 man 1 woman and not ok to limit it to two people? It's the same argument.

No. Actually the question is if we expand beyond one man-one woman marriage, why set some other apparently artificial boundary, other than it simply being a popularity contest and polygamists aren't that popular. The arbitrariness is startling.