Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Which is what I said about any man or woman being free to marry anyone of the opposite sex, an concept that was decried as hateful, against civil rights, etc. You just like the draw a different boundary on what is ok to be defined as marriage than I do, but you aren't willing to acknowledge that's what you're doing, unlike me.

Just shows how little attention you've been paying. There is always a "definition" of marriage - it's a concept completely made up by humans. You can't really have your own definition of a star or an electron, but the definition of marriage (i.e. the line betwtween what is and what is not marriage) has always been fluid. Posts I've made that either implicitly or explicitly acknowledge that there is a definition of marriage that is arbitrarily defined:

#438
#476
#759
#783

And the clincher, #785: "Well, that's a policy question, and I have no problem with arbitrary limits agreed upon through the democratic process."

In fact, you originally tried to argue that the entire "problem" with allowing gay marriage is that it set an arbitrary limit, while limiting marriage to 1 man-1 woman DID NOT (post #780). So you've now completely reversed - you're now in favor of arbitrary limits but you think that the pro-gay marriage crowd is not.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

blah blah blah

You misunderstand what I'm saying in too many ways to take the time to correct.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Teflon Bob...

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Teflon Bob...

Yawn.

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Teflon Bob...

Well, at least this time he explicitly stated that he refused to engage rather than just changing the subject. Baby steps...

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Well, at least this time he explicitly stated that he refused to engage rather than just changing the subject. Baby steps...

Yawn.

[St. Clown]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Just shows how little attention you've been paying. There is always a "definition" of marriage - it's a concept completely made up by humans. You can't really have your own definition of a star or an electron, but the definition of marriage (i.e. the line betwtween what is and what is not marriage) has always been fluid. Posts I've made that either implicitly or explicitly acknowledge that there is a definition of marriage that is arbitrarily defined:

#438
#476
#759
#783

And the clincher, #785: "Well, that's a policy question, and I have no problem with arbitrary limits agreed upon through the democratic process."

In fact, you originally tried to argue that the entire "problem" with allowing gay marriage is that it set an arbitrary limit, while limiting marriage to 1 man-1 woman DID NOT (post #780). So you've now completely reversed - you're now in favor of arbitrary limits but you think that the pro-gay marriage crowd is not.

You misunderstand what I'm saying in too many ways to take the time to correct.

Then you're making a poor showing of explaining yourself as I find most of LynahFan's points here valid.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Then you're making a poor showing of explaining yourself as I find most of LynahFan's points here valid.

It's not rocket science. I've been hearing for years here that letting consenting adults marry is a civil right, in that case applying to gay marriage. Once that gets the ok from the Supreme Court, we're told that the exact same reasoning can't be applied to other alternative groupings of consenting adults. I was just looking for a little consistency. It's either open season for consenting adults to form their own groupings as they see fit, or there is some place to set a limit of some sort, which place then needs some sort of justification. There is a ton more reasoning for having a boundary set at one man-one woman than to open it up to gay couples and then say no other alternatives other than that. But, as usual, I find that consistency is in short order around here. But, I've said this a number of times and it's been twisted and misrepresented, so I expect that'll happen here in short order (my apologies to the few reasoned posters like lewsp1 that can have some give and take in a respectful manner).

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

It's not rocket science. I've been hearing for years here that letting consenting adults marry is a civil right, in that case applying to gay marriage. Once that gets the ok from the Supreme Court, we're told that the exact same reasoning can't be applied to other alternative groupings of consenting adults. I was just looking for a little consistency. It's either open season for consenting adults to form their own groupings as they see fit, or there is some place to set a limit of some sort, which place then needs some sort of justification. There is a ton more reasoning for having a boundary set at one man-one woman than to open it up to gay couples and then say no other alternatives other than that. But, as usual, I find that consistency is in short order around here. But, I've said this a number of times and it's been twisted and misrepresented, so I expect that'll happen here in short order (my apologies to the few reasoned posters like lewsp1 that can have some give and take in a respectful manner).

Consistency? We have to entertain your straw man argument in order to be deemed consistent?

That's akin to saying that pot can't be made legal because then we'll have to make meth legal.


Just stop. We know you're opposed.

You won't say why you're opposed, presumably for fear of backlash. Instead you resort to straw man fallacies.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Consistency? We have to entertain your straw man argument in order to be deemed consistent?

That's akin to saying that pot can't be made legal because then we'll have to make meth legal.


Just stop. We know you're opposed.

You won't say why you're opposed, presumably for fear of backlash. Instead you resort to straw man fallacies.

Teflon Gurtholfin


See what I get when I respond substantively St. Clown?

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

There is a ton more reasoning for having a boundary set at one man-one woman than to open it up to gay couples and then say no other alternatives other than that.

And yet, with all that "reasoning" apparently available, you haven't presented any. What reasoning? Tradition and religion are not reasoning - in fact, they're the exact opposite of reasoning, where the conclusion is pre-supposed and no other alternatives are welcome or considered.

My reasoning is that if you allow same sex marriage, then every adult in the US has the potential to make a life-long commitment to a partner who he/she is attracted to. Setting the limit at 1 man, 1 woman eliminates that possibility for an entire category of people - some have the possbility, some do not. It's inherently unequal. Allowing same-sex marriage eliminates that inequality, and moving toward equality is always a step in the right direction. Secondly, given that there are gay people who will be "all but married" anyway, sharing houses, raising children, etc, society would be better off if those relationships were formally recognized as marriages so that those families have the same protections as married families in the event of tragedies such as death of a partner, divorce, bankruptcy, etc. Those sort of events are devastating enough for married couples, but are doubly so for those whose families are do not enjoy the (partial) shelter of legal status. The benefit to society from granting married status to those families far outweighs any potential harm or costs. It's the same reasoning why some states recognize common-law marriages: if you're going to live together as a societal unit, then society is better off if that relationship is formally and legally codified.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

And yet, with all that "reasoning" apparently available, you haven't presented any. What reasoning? Tradition and religion are not reasoning - in fact, they're the exact opposite of reasoning, where the conclusion is pre-supposed and no other alternatives are welcome or considered.

My reasoning is that if you allow same sex marriage, then every adult in the US has the potential to make a life-long commitment to a partner who he/she is attracted to. Setting the limit at 1 man, 1 woman eliminates that possibility for an entire category of people - some have the possbility, some do not. It's inherently unequal. Allowing same-sex marriage eliminates that inequality, and moving toward equality is always a step in the right direction. Secondly, given that there are gay people who will be "all but married" anyway, sharing houses, raising children, etc, society would be better off if those relationships were formally recognized as marriages so that those families have the same protections as married families in the event of tragedies such as death of a partner, divorce, bankruptcy, etc. Those sort of events are devastating enough for married couples, but are doubly so for those whose families are do not enjoy the (partial) shelter of legal status. The benefit to society from granting married status to those families far outweighs any potential harm or costs. It's the same reasoning why some states recognize common-law marriages: if you're going to live together as a societal unit, then society is better off if that relationship is formally and legally codified.

That could work.

Or, we could eliminate abortion, birth control, sodomy, and interracial marriage like God intended.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

And yet, with all that "reasoning" apparently available, you haven't presented any. What reasoning? Tradition and religion are not reasoning - in fact, they're the exact opposite of reasoning, where the conclusion is pre-supposed and no other alternatives are welcome or considered.

My reasoning is that if you allow same sex marriage, then every adult in the US has the potential to make a life-long commitment to a partner who he/she is attracted to. Setting the limit at 1 man, 1 woman eliminates that possibility for an entire category of people - some have the possbility, some do not. It's inherently unequal. Allowing same-sex marriage eliminates that inequality, and moving toward equality is always a step in the right direction. Secondly, given that there are gay people who will be "all but married" anyway, sharing houses, raising children, etc, society would be better off if those relationships were formally recognized as marriages so that those families have the same protections as married families in the event of tragedies such as death of a partner, divorce, bankruptcy, etc. Those sort of events are devastating enough for married couples, but are doubly so for those whose families are do not enjoy the (partial) shelter of legal status. The benefit to society from granting married status to those families far outweighs any potential harm or costs. It's the same reasoning why some states recognize common-law marriages: if you're going to live together as a societal unit, then society is better off if that relationship is formally and legally codified.

When I've started getting into that kind of detailed discussion around here in the past, it's gotten real ugly, real quick. As you well know, so let's not pretend I haven't tried in the past. If I had a shot at a decent, reasoned discussion of this, I'd be all over it. I do it around here on a variety of other issues where people have more capacity to discuss without things getting so ugly. It's just not worth the effort to have such a discussion when I post something explaining my thoughts and I get five nasty posts calling me a bigot for one post that returns the reasonable discussion (and five to one is being generous). Plus of course anybody who has followed this subject at all knows the reasonings on both sides of the issue. It's not like I'd post anything on here that at least many around here don't already know or aren't already familiar with.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

That could work.

Or, we could eliminate abortion, birth control, sodomy, and interracial marriage like God intended.

Here is one of many examples Lynah Fan. And there's lots of Scoobies out there.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Well said Lynah.

If you're going to allow 1 man and 1 woman (two total people), how can you deny any other 2 people? How is that not discrimination or violating civil rights unless you apply the yuck factor, religion or tradition? Three things that a government should not be bound by at the expense of individual rights. Opening it up to any 2 people makes the law equal for all, which is what we're supposed to stand for.

The law doesn't allow one man to be married to two women, so the idea that gay marriage would lead to "other groupings" is a fallacy. That would go beyond making the law equal and would be a separate issue. An issue that doesn't/wouldn't effect an estimated 10% of our population and one that wouldn't get any widespread support.