Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[Bob Gray]

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?

Someone gets it.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

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.

Why? Sounds to me like its standard progression. The law changes slowly. Always has. The change to gay marriage now is no more arbitrary than the change to interracial marriage. In my mind there is nothing to "get".

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

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.

You are being JUST AS ARBITRARY.

What fundamental, non-arbitrary, basis guides your belief that we should limit marriage to heterosexual couples? "Because we've always done it that way," is neither true nor fundamental. Got anything else?

[joecct]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

You are being JUST AS ARBITRARY.

What fundamental, non-arbitrary, basis guides your belief that we should limit marriage to heterosexual couples? "Because we've always done it that way," is neither true nor fundamental. Got anything else?

If the definition of "marriage" is variable, then what are its limits? Where do you (or anyone) draw the line?

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

If the definition of "marriage" is variable, then what are its limits? Where do you (or anyone) draw the line?

Well, that's a policy question, and I have no problem with arbitrary limits agreed upon through the democratic process.

Bob says that there should be no such thing as arbitrary limits, then out of the other side of his mouth says that marriage should be arbitrarily limited to 1 man, 1 woman. THAT is the startling inconsistency in this thread.

[Foxton]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Well, that's a policy question, and I have no problem with arbitrary limits agreed upon through the democratic process.

Bob says that there should be no such thing as arbitrary limits, then out of the other side of his mouth says that marriage should be arbitrarily limited to 1 man, 1 woman. THAT is the startling inconsistency in this thread.

I'd call it consistent. Bob and people like him are consistently hypocritical *******s who are terrified of anything that isn't leave it to beaver.

And judging by how fast they flip to polygamy or bestiality, they probably need those laws in place or else they'd be claiming that goat down the road was giving them the come hither look and all the other animals at the petting zoo were just asking for it.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I'd call it consistent. Bob and people like him are consistently hypocritical *******s who are terrified of anything that isn't leave it to beaver.

And judging by how fast they flip to polygamy or bestiality, they probably need those laws in place or else they'd be claiming that goat down the road was giving them the come hither look and all the other animals at the petting zoo were just asking for it.

Pot and kettle.

[Foxton]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Pot and kettle.

Dumb, meet dumber.

With civil unions now being allowed, we will see more homosexual relationships forming, hence the higher possibility of rape.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

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.

If you are to limit marriage to 1 man and 1 woman, do you not think you need a consistent definition of what a man and a woman are? I am honestly not trying to go down a rabbit hole, I just really would like to hear a consistent framework for definition of gender. You seem to ignore 1-2 out of 1000 Americans, or even 1-100 Americans quite easily.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

If the definition of "marriage" is variable, then what are its limits? Where do you (or anyone) draw the line?

Don't expect a straight answer. The limits are whatever they want them to be at the moment and will surely change over and over again.

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Don't expect a straight answer. The limits are whatever they want them to be at the moment and will surely change over and over again.

Most definitely. And change is absolutely, always bad. Everything was 100% perfect on September 17, 1787, and it's been nothing but downhill ever since.

[Priceless]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

If the definition of "marriage" is variable, then what are its limits? Where do you (or anyone) draw the line?

The same place it always has: societal norms. What some people want to do is implement societal norms from 1950 and make them firm forever in the US Constitution. It is very rare that we codify anything in the Constitution. If we were to freeze societal norms at 1787, we would see that interracial marriages are forbidden. For that matter, most of our African American population would be property. Only white men who own land could vote, etc. However, the Constitution, and laws as a whole, change over time. Laws about cleaning up after your horse does its business on Main Street are fairly obsolete now. We freed the slaves, opened up the right to vote to every American citizen, etc. What we see as societal norms today will almost certainly be different in 50 years, let alone 100 or 200. That is incredibly frightening to some people, but trying to stem the tide of social progress is a losing battle.

And we will see straw men arguments in 3....2...

[unofan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Most definitely. And change is absolutely, always bad. Everything was 100% perfect on September 17, 1787, and it's been nothing but downhill ever since.

Funny how Bob is against polygamy, when that was readily acceptable in the Bible. Solomon had something like 700 wives and 300 concubines.

But apparently that was either too traditional or not traditional enough. I'm not sure.

[geezer]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Funny how Bob is against polygamy, when that was readily acceptable in the Bible. Solomon had something like 700 wives and 300 concubines.

But apparently that was either too traditional or not traditional enough. I'm not sure.

You might want to use a different example (and there are others). Solomon was famous for rejecting God to glory in his own wisdom (and collect wives, etc).

[Rover]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Um excuse me, but did you ever stop and consider that God has Bob on speed dial, and has been conferring with him on a regular basis as to HIS wishes on this issue?

Because, if that is true, when you get to the Pearly Gates, you're gonna feel real stupid if Bob is the one holding the keys to them.