Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[Rover]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

While I'm well aware of my reputation for making fun of social conservatives, I usually do so because they're talking the talk and not walking the walk. On this issue I do have some sympathy for those who are watching society change rather rapidly before their eyes. Lots of people long for a simpler time when people weren't forced to confront these issues.

My state was at the epicenter of this issue and in all honesty my position going in was that civil unions were a preferable alternative for granting rights. But, the court ruled and I can say my life or my state hasn't changed any because of it. Society evolves whether we want it to or not. For thousands of years, up until fairly recently in the grand scheme of things, slavery wasn't just tolerated. It was the norm. Even today there are most likely people walking around who's grandparents were born into slavery in the US. Society changed for the better on that one, even though the practice had survived since the dawn of time.

Now I'm not equating gay marriage with slavery, but sometimes things evolve your way and sometimes they don't.

Regarding the Boy Scouts or Augusta, nobody forced them to enact changes. Clearly they faced some pressure, but that's life. Every entity is facing pressure from this group or that, from the right or from the left, at one point or another. That's what happens in a free society.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Should the Black Panthers be allowed to exclude white people form their ranks?

I don't see why, especially if they take taxpayer money.

It's only ok to be exclusive when it's ok to be exclusive. Or so the reasoning seems to go.

It doesn't even matter that I agreed with the hypothetical put forth by Shirtless...Bob is going to criticize anyway...

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

We all agree that's not a good road to get to marriage. But,this quote confuses the road one gets to marriage with marriage itself. I'm pretty sure those marriages were male-female, just like pretty much always in every culture until this latest social trend. So no redefinition of marriage itself. But, hey, details, details, huh?

Who or what determines where the line is from the road to getting to marriage and marriage itself. To you, is the real definition of marriage only that it includes a p enis and a vagina?

Any time someone brings up a counter point illustrating that marriage is a fluid, societal based construct, all that apparently needs to be said in counterargument is that the true Definition of Marriage (TM) was never changed. Convenient how this definition evades detection like the God of the Gaps.

 

[unofan]

Who or what determines where the line is from the road to getting to marriage and marriage itself. To you, is the real definition of marriage only that it includes a p enis and a vagina?

One male and at least one female. Remember, polygamy was quite acceptable in the old testament.

Apparently it is no longer acceptable, but nevertheless marriage never was redefined. Or something.

Did I tell you about the onion bob wore on his belt, as was the style at the time?

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Did I tell you about the onion bob wore on his belt, as was the style at the time?

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Acceptance (or even tolerance) of a group into society is one thing. Forcing a private group with the right to refuse service to anyone to accept members is completely another. The Augusta Club (yes, those green jackets actually signify membership) just recently admitted the first woman into the golf club. Recall that admittance to the club is by invitation only. I don't recall hearing the stains complaining about that. Or are women not very high on their priority list, assuming they ever were?

As has been pointed out, there was a big hubbub about it. And it's sad it took that long for it to become a big deal. Same thing with segregated proms still being a thing. But again, as I stated, I think it's fine for private groups to do how they please with their membership requirements, as long as they're ok with getting made fun of for living in 1913 instead of 2013.

 

[burd]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

We all agree that's not a good road to get to marriage. But,this quote confuses the road one gets to marriage with marriage itself. I'm pretty sure those marriages were male-female, just like pretty much always in every culture until this latest social trend. So no redefinition of marriage itself. But, hey, details, details, huh?

The road to marriage.

"Pat" was born with female genitalia and was listed as a girl on her birth certificate. She always felt she was a man trapped in a female body, however, and underwent successful sex change therapy and now has male genitalia (nice junk!). She fell in love with a man and wants to marry him. Fall within your definition of an acceptable marriage?

If Pat had fallen in love with a woman rather than a man and wanted to marry her, would that have passed muster?

If Pat had fallen in love with a woman who was born a male but underwent successful sex change herself, would that work?

And what would happen if Pat was medically "ambiguous" at birth and her parents chose to proceed one way or the other? (WW, I'm at sea on factual possibilities here).

Since nobody has been in a position for quite a long time to get an updated medical/ethical opinion from God, who decides? Priest? Surgeon? Lawyers? Zach Parise?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Who or what determines where the line is from the road to getting to marriage and marriage itself. To you, is the real definition of marriage only that it includes a p enis and a vagina?

Any time someone brings up a counter point illustrating that marriage is a fluid, societal based construct, all that apparently needs to be said in counterargument is that the true Definition of Marriage (TM) was never changed. Convenient how this definition evades detection like the God of the Gaps.

Um, the road to marriage is how you get there. Marriage is the person you're married to. I assumed that was self-explanatory, but this place always reminds me not to assume even the obvious.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

The road to marriage.

"Pat" was born with female genitalia and was listed as a girl on her birth certificate. She always felt she was a man trapped in a female body, however, and underwent successful sex change therapy and now has male genitalia (nice junk!). She fell in love with a man and wants to marry him. Fall within your definition of an acceptable marriage?

If Pat had fallen in love with a woman rather than a man and wanted to marry her, would that have passed muster?

If Pat had fallen in love with a woman who was born a male but underwent successful sex change herself, would that work?

And what would happen if Pat was medically "ambiguous" at birth and her parents chose to proceed one way or the other? (WW, I'm at sea on factual possibilities here).

Since nobody has been in a position for quite a long time to get an updated medical/ethical opinion from God, who decides?

Darn it burd...I wanted Bob to answer all of these questions

I have yet to find a consistent definition of marriage that someone with even a minor biology/medical background cannot poke massive holes through.

Zach Parise?

No

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

What's with all the chatter about the BSA being forced to change? It was discussed for years, their leadership took a vote, and the outcome was 61-39. Some people are acting like a hypothetical Obama commission or committee threatened to sue the BSA if they didn't change.

This won't change anything else in the foreseeable future.

Those who don't live under a rock know that they've been threatened in a variety of ways, including major corporate sponsors pulling funding after those corporate sponsors caved to pressure themselves. To pretend there was anything other than enormous pressure on the Boy Scouts is simply being unaware of what has gone on.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Um, the road to marriage is how you get there. Marriage is the person you're married to. I assumed that was self-explanatory, but this place always reminds me not to assume even the obvious.

Do you think a person who is genetically XY should not be allowed to marry another person who is genetically XY?

 

[burd]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Zach Parise?

No

So I suppose Dany Heatley is acceptable? How do we know his sense of Divine Wisdom is any more developed than ZPar's?

Besides, he's Canadian and they don't even pass the Mariucci test.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

So I suppose Dany Heatley is acceptable? How do we know his sense of Divine Wisdom is any more developed than ZPar's?

I am not sure I would put Divine Wisdom and Heatley together in any way.

Maybe Brian Rafalski? He seems like someone I can trust.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I always ask this...but why would God create gay people if he despised them so much? We know it wasn't a mistake since God is infallible so what could possibly be the reason?

That goes well with this quote from George Carlin:

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tjVLJKR6g7U?hl=en_US&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tjVLJKR6g7U?hl=en_US&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Those who don't live under a rock know that they've been threatened in a variety of ways, including major corporate sponsors pulling funding after those corporate sponsors caved to pressure themselves. To pretend there was anything other than enormous pressure on the Boy Scouts is simply being unaware of what has gone on.

So "pressuring" is now the same thing as "threatening" or "forcing?" Uh-uh. Do those corporations not have the right to express their opinions (hint: see Citizens United, which most conservatives cheer hook, line, and sinker). And if some people used their first amendment rights to pressure those corporations, well, bully for them.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

We all agree that's not a good road to get to marriage. But,this quote confuses the road one gets to marriage with marriage itself. I'm pretty sure those marriages were male-female, just like pretty much always in every culture until this latest social trend. So no redefinition of marriage itself. But, hey, details, details, huh?

So when a father in 500 BC sold his 13 year old girl into life-long sexual slavery, you think that the definition of her relationship with her husband is the same as the definition of your relationship with your wife? Fascinating position you've had to contort yourself into, there - hope you don't throw your hip out of joint extricating yourself.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

So "pressuring" is now the same thing as "threatening" or "forcing?" Uh-uh. Do those corporations not have the right to express their opinions (hint: see Citizens United, which most conservatives cheer hook, line, and sinker). And if some people used their first amendment rights to pressure those corporations, well, bully for them.

One of these days, an organization will call those bluffs...

 

[Priceless]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

One of these days, an organization will call those bluffs...

The Masters did. Rather than allow boycotts to threaten their sponsors, the club cut bait with almost all of them and kept a few that were boycott proof (like ExxonMobil). They let in women on their time table, not Martha Burk's.

 

[burd]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I am not sure I would put Divine Wisdom and Heatley together in any way.

Maybe Brian Rafalski? He seems like someone I can trust.

OK. Brian Rafalski. This is progress.

Brian Rafalski shall determine who can and who cannot be married-at least as it pertains to the gender issue. Or will his authority extend to sexual preference as well? And by sexual preference, I assume that includes position selection, video aids, maximum (and minimum) number of participants, the physical appearance of the partner or partners--the basic stuff. Are you sure Rafalski has experience in all these areas? And how do I know he won't declare missionary style deviant and therefore an impermissible preference?


Sigh. Maybe we should just stick with the old Your Particular God guidelines.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

OK. Brian Rafalski. This is progress.

Brian Rafalski shall determine who can and who cannot be married-at least as it pertains to the gender issue. Or will his authority extend to sexual preference as well? And by sexual preference, I assume that includes position selection, video aids, maximum (and minimum) number of participants, the physical appearance of the partner or partners--the basic stuff. Are you sure Rafalski has experience in all these areas? And how do I know he won't declare missionary style deviant and therefore an impermissible preference?


Sigh. Maybe we should just stick with the old Your Particular God guidelines.

Idol worship is hard