Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[Bob Gray]

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.

Only if consistency is applied of course, which I don't think we are at risk of seeing happen in this nation.

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

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

Let's see... So you don't want to make reasoned, logical posts in here for fear of encountering nastiness, so instead you come here to make snarky, ad hominem remarks. How's that strategy working out for you? Minimizing the nastiness you encounter, as intended?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Let's see... So you don't want to make reasoned, logical posts in here for fear of encountering nastiness, so instead you come here to make snarky, ad hominem remarks. How's that strategy working out for you? Minimizing the nastiness you encounter, as intended?

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

The cookies will find you...

*****http://i820.***********.com/albums/zz128/Gurtholfin/Traditional_zps52b43b5d.jpg******

[unofan]

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.

Please, name them. And again, "yuck, "because God," and "it's tradition" are not valid answers.

[theprofromdover]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Let's see... So you don't want to make reasoned, logical posts in here for fear of encountering nastiness, so instead you come here to make snarky, ad hominem remarks. How's that strategy working out for you? Minimizing the nastiness you encounter, as intended?

It works for Jan Brewer!

[ScoobyDoo]

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.

What is the reasoning?

[St. Clown]

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).

I would have to challenge the argument here in that the difference between marriages consisting of two people of the opposite sex vs. two people of the same sex and pluralistic marriages is the exercising of marital rights within a marriage. For instance, if I'm on my deathbed, essentially a vegtable, and my fictional wife is asked by the doctor what course of action to take, she has sole ownership of rights in my treatment or to pull the plug. Meanwhile in a pluralistic marriage, if I have a fictional stable of wives, and all hold equal rights to one the others within the marriage as to my treatment, how are marital rights execised in times like this? Do these fictional wives also hold marital powers over each other or is it considered to strictly be a marriage with me and nobody else? What about rights with regards to offspring? Things become very tangled. In a same-sex marriage between two people, the only thing that changes for the current laws in 37(?) states is the sex of the partners. Therefore, I'll support same-sex marriage, but plural marriages simply become too tangled for the state to officially recognize. So if a guy wants one wife and 3,000 girlfriends (in the eyes of the state), that's between those 3,002 willing people.

[burd]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I would have to challenge the argument here in that the difference between marriages consisting of two people of the opposite sex vs. two people of the same sex and pluralistic marriages is the exercising of marital rights within a marriage. For instance, if I'm on my deathbed, essentially a vegtable, and my fictional wife is asked by the doctor what course of action to take, she has sole ownership of rights in my treatment or to pull the plug. Meanwhile in a pluralistic marriage, if I have a fictional stable of wives, and all hold equal rights to one the others within the marriage as to my treatment, how are marital rights execised in times like this? Do these fictional wives also hold marital powers over each other or is it considered to strictly be a marriage with me and nobody else? What about rights with regards to offspring? Things become very tangled. In a same-sex marriage between two people, the only thing that changes for the current laws in 37(?) states is the sex of the partners. Therefore, I'll support same-sex marriage, but plural marriages simply become too tangled for the state to officially recognize. So if a guy wants one wife and 3,000 girlfriends (in the eyes of the state), that's between those 3,002 willing people.

Not to pick nits, and I understand your point, but one does not have authority to make health care decisions for another based solely on spousal status--at least not in the state I live in. Treating Docs generally listen to a close family member, but absent a court ordered guardianship, it takes a health care power of attorney to delegate your own decision-making authority to another.

[joecct]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Not to pick nits, and I understand your point, but one does not have authority to make health care decisions for another based solely on spousal status--at least not in the state I live in. Treating Docs generally listen to a close family member, but absent a court ordered guardianship, it takes a health care power of attorney to delegate your own decision-making authority to another.

Yep, and if all the wives are blond.......

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

It was never about equality. It was only about vindication. http://www.examiner.com/article/gram...-not-being-gay

[joecct]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Complications:
(a) California: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...identify-with/
(b) Arizona: http://www.kktv.com/news/other/headl...200611961.html

Neither is about same sex marriage (maybe Arizona?), but can 'o worms...

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Complications:
(a) California: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...identify-with/

Neither is about same sex marriage (maybe Arizona?), but can 'o worms...

F it. Let's just go with gender neutral locker rooms and rest rooms...there's no way that could go wrong, right?

[FlagDUDE08]

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.

How about the creation of the future of the country? Or if this becomes a New World Order thing, the entire human species?

[Priceless]

Complications:
(a) California: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...identify-with/
(b) Arizona: http://www.kktv.com/news/other/headl...200611961.html

Neither is about same sex marriage (maybe Arizona?), but can 'o worms...

I love the comment on the California story about this allowing some pervert to put on a dress, walk into the girl's room and rape some preteen. What exactly is stopping them from doing that now? The bathroom police?