Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Or that you ask pertinent questions!

You keep making this point and it is a very, very good point. Unfortunately grey is not a comfortable shade, it is easier for people to think in black and white.

Haha I know. I am hoping to eventually re-phrase it in a way that it makes it into the "Gray Zone of Pertinent Questions"

[leswp1]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Plus...as I have pointed out before...this is very much based on the assumption that gender is binary. It is demonstrably not binary, but instead on a continuum. This is (one reason) why gender should not be taken into account in marriage since it would be (and is) inherently inconsistent. I understand this is not an important point to you but I know it is a very important point to many, many, many other citizens.

You keep making this point and it is a very, very good point. Unfortunately grey is not a comfortable shade, it is easier for people to think in black and white.

[WisconsinWildcard]

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.

Plus...as I have pointed out before...this is very much based on the assumption that gender is binary. It is demonstrably not binary, but instead on a continuum. This is (one reason) why gender should not be taken into account in marriage since it would be (and is) inherently inconsistent. I understand this is not an important point to you but I know it is a very important point to many, many, many other citizens.

[BassAle]

That woman has some serious issues if she thinks that is even remotely normal.

I always though a three income household is a great idea. Or two incomes plus a stay at home parent. But everyone knows it is supposed to be two chicks (bonus of they are also into each other).

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.

Where does the idea that it must be of the opposite sex come from?

Is it a religious conviction? A "yuck" reaction? A "because that's how it's always been" sort of thing?


Trying to apply this (one man + one woman) to polygamy or even bigamy or marrying a goat or whatever is not the same thing - even if you really really want it to be.

Yuck, religion and history are not valid reasons to disallow two people to be married. Don't believe me? Watch how this plays out over the next several years.


Wrong side of history, you are... or will be.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Of course they do - there are lots of choices available for them. Nobody has the "right" to choose to be married to *anyone* that they designate. You might as well say that I have lesser status than Barack Obama, because he's entitled to make the "choice" of being married to Michelle while I am not since she is already married (and so am I).

You're desperate to find an inconsistency where none exists. Once gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, every adult in the US will be entitled to be married to exactly one other adult at their mutual choice, which is perfectly consistent.

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.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Why would anyone care if 3, 5 or 10 people want to be married? Whats it to you? What someone does in their home is up to them, Right?

I'd say we have two logical choices. Ban interracial marriage, or allow people to marry multiple humans, roller coasters, and box turtles, etc. etc. etc.

Personally I'd go with option "A". It would be more consistent with our choices in health care and taxes.

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

They don't have a choice though, do they?

Of course they do - there are lots of choices available for them. Nobody has the "right" to choose to be married to *anyone* that they designate. You might as well say that I have lesser status than Barack Obama, because he's entitled to make the "choice" of being married to Michelle while I am not since she is already married (and so am I).

You're desperate to find an inconsistency where none exists. Once gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, every adult in the US will be entitled to be married to exactly one other adult at their mutual choice, which is perfectly consistent.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

If the 3rd person is ok with that then why not?

They don't have a choice though, do they?

[ericredaxe]

Inheritance Laws? Though a Last Will & Testament should take care of that. Intestate would be a different animal.

Another question would be citizenship by marriage laws...

[ericredaxe]

So the third person is condemned to lesser status, and that's ok. Got it.

If the 3rd person is ok with that then why not?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

So the third person is condemned to lesser status, and that's ok. Got it.

[walrus]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Why would anyone care if 3, 5 or 10 people want to be married? Whats it to you? What someone does in their home is up to them, Right?

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Depends on your definition of "OK." Morally? Totally fine with it. Religiously? Well, I don't believe in anything supernatural, benign or otherwise, so I am not qualified to have an opinion there. Legally? I don't think 3 or more adults sharing a residence should be against the law (as in, they shouldn't be arrested for it). Civilly? Well, here's where it gets trickier, obviously. Does/should the 3rd adult have any priveleges (e.g. access to medical records) or responsbilities (e.g. paying child support) normally associated with a civil marriage? I think it's quite obvious that the "3rd man in" so to speak does not have any of those rights or responsibilities today - the 3rd person is just a mistress/mister who happens to share the residence. I'm 100% fine with maintaining this status quo indefinitely. If a couple decides to pick up a little something extra on the side, they do so knowing that there will be no responsibilities or priveleges enforceable by law with respect to the 3rd person.

Rabble rabble rabble....

I agree

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Inheritance Laws? Though a Last Will & Testament should take care of that. Intestate would be a different animal.

Not really any different from any other unmarried person with no legal descendents who dies without a will. My guess is that anyone with enough assets to make this an interesting question would have a will anyway, redering the question uninteresting again.