USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
ericredaxe
Veteran
If the 3rd person is ok with that then why not?
ericredaxe
Veteran
Another question would be citizenship by marriage laws...
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
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.
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.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
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.
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.
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.
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
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.
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.
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).
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
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.
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.
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
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
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
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"
Or that you ask pertinent questions!
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"Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
First time I learned my wife had penile tissue down there I had to buy a Harley jacket, get a barb wire tat and work on making my voice deeper.
First time I learned my wife had penile tissue down there I had to buy a Harley jacket, get a barb wire tat and work on making my voice deeper.
Last edited:
XYZ
Smoking in the selection room.
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
Have to admit I have been following this discussion from the beginning and I'm genuinely surprised it has lasted this long. Of all the issues on the planet, I just cannot comprehend why this one is such a big deal. Well, I can, but I can't, but as probably as genuine of a civil libertarian as one is going to find, it really does surprise me that so many people are willing to spend as much time as they do fighting gay marriage.
I have a pretty diverse array of friends, including one diehard Catholic who is adamantly opposed to legally recognized gay marriage. Thing is, the guy legitimately cares about all people, has five kids and wishes harm on no one. In his mind, he views the issue as no different than stealing, lying, etc.; an entity that just shouldn't be legally recognized as it isn't just. I find his stance wrong, but relatively reasonably and consistent in context, but that makes me acknowledge that there are reasonable people out there that oppose it. Bob Gray is one of those people, so I must admit that the repeated useless comments about Bob "nailing himself to his cross," which I've seen at least three references to over the past few days in various threads, are fairly pathetic and those of you who have said it should probably take the plastic bag off your head. I think Bob is wrong, but to think he's being malicious or carries any ill will is ridiculous.
Granted this is a generalization, but it seems to me that a lot of the opponents of gay marriage have a hard time making a distinction between what is morally acceptable per a given religion and what is legal and proper per the implementation of our governmental rules. In my mind, even if morally unacceptable per one's religious tenets, I fail to see how one can contend that it should be prevented under the rules we are (supposedly) governed by. So much opposition to a passive action that infringes on the freedoms and rights of absolutely no one. Government recognized marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. Should we prevent gays from signing lease agreements? Of course not. In a very simple legal sense my mind fails to see a difference. Those who contend there is a difference only ever seem to find one by bringing in tenets of their own doctrine that have nothing to do, and shouldn't have anything to do, with the governmental recognition thereof.
Again, I know plenty of reasonable people who are opposed, but it still astounds me people get so wound up to fight against it. Just baffles me from a common sense standpoint, but not really from a human nature one. Letting good people live their lives freely is something our government is actually supposed to be doing and doesn't do anywhere near enough of. Seems to me there are a myriad of other issues out there where the government is actually doing the opposite. Yet no one seems to care much about any of those...
Anyway, I'm certainly no activist and have been of this mindset for some time now but for anyone who is opposed to gay marriage, riddle me this:
I am straight. My roommate is gay. I don't have children, but let's assume I was a single parent and had a young son. Were that the case, and were I to unexpectedly perish, all I know is that she would be **** near the top of the list on the people I would wish to raise that son were I not around. Because of her character, integrity, common sense and my full belief that she would raise a wonderful person. End of story for me.
Yet I'm supposed to buy an argument that says she can't obtain simple legal protections like power of attorney, tax benefits and family insurance benefits because she might find a soul mate that might be a woman?
Per some, apparently so. And I've never heard a good reason as to why.
Have to admit I have been following this discussion from the beginning and I'm genuinely surprised it has lasted this long. Of all the issues on the planet, I just cannot comprehend why this one is such a big deal. Well, I can, but I can't, but as probably as genuine of a civil libertarian as one is going to find, it really does surprise me that so many people are willing to spend as much time as they do fighting gay marriage.
I have a pretty diverse array of friends, including one diehard Catholic who is adamantly opposed to legally recognized gay marriage. Thing is, the guy legitimately cares about all people, has five kids and wishes harm on no one. In his mind, he views the issue as no different than stealing, lying, etc.; an entity that just shouldn't be legally recognized as it isn't just. I find his stance wrong, but relatively reasonably and consistent in context, but that makes me acknowledge that there are reasonable people out there that oppose it. Bob Gray is one of those people, so I must admit that the repeated useless comments about Bob "nailing himself to his cross," which I've seen at least three references to over the past few days in various threads, are fairly pathetic and those of you who have said it should probably take the plastic bag off your head. I think Bob is wrong, but to think he's being malicious or carries any ill will is ridiculous.
Granted this is a generalization, but it seems to me that a lot of the opponents of gay marriage have a hard time making a distinction between what is morally acceptable per a given religion and what is legal and proper per the implementation of our governmental rules. In my mind, even if morally unacceptable per one's religious tenets, I fail to see how one can contend that it should be prevented under the rules we are (supposedly) governed by. So much opposition to a passive action that infringes on the freedoms and rights of absolutely no one. Government recognized marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. Should we prevent gays from signing lease agreements? Of course not. In a very simple legal sense my mind fails to see a difference. Those who contend there is a difference only ever seem to find one by bringing in tenets of their own doctrine that have nothing to do, and shouldn't have anything to do, with the governmental recognition thereof.
Again, I know plenty of reasonable people who are opposed, but it still astounds me people get so wound up to fight against it. Just baffles me from a common sense standpoint, but not really from a human nature one. Letting good people live their lives freely is something our government is actually supposed to be doing and doesn't do anywhere near enough of. Seems to me there are a myriad of other issues out there where the government is actually doing the opposite. Yet no one seems to care much about any of those...
Anyway, I'm certainly no activist and have been of this mindset for some time now but for anyone who is opposed to gay marriage, riddle me this:
I am straight. My roommate is gay. I don't have children, but let's assume I was a single parent and had a young son. Were that the case, and were I to unexpectedly perish, all I know is that she would be **** near the top of the list on the people I would wish to raise that son were I not around. Because of her character, integrity, common sense and my full belief that she would raise a wonderful person. End of story for me.
Yet I'm supposed to buy an argument that says she can't obtain simple legal protections like power of attorney, tax benefits and family insurance benefits because she might find a soul mate that might be a woman?
Per some, apparently so. And I've never heard a good reason as to why.
Last edited:
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
Great post. Very well thought out and beautifully put.
I, too, am continually amazed that this is such a huge issue. Before this was ever on the radar on a larger level I had a friend who fell in love with her college roommate. It never even gave it a second thought. I remember sitting at the family dinner table (some holiday, lots of extended family) and saying I didn't get what the big deal was. My dick head cousin (pompous a55 on many levels) was appalled but none of the grown ups had much to say. Found out close to 30 yrs later that my 2 Aunties were partners (not blood relatives) and this was a hidden subject in the family. All the kids in my generation (except for the Dick) never questioned their relationship. No one was polluted, all of us are heterosexual (as far as I know) but if we weren't it wouldn't be a big deal.
I do genealogy as a hobby and in every generation of my family- both sides, until this one, there were people partnered with a same sex person living for yrs together acting like a couples. When I ask about the target person there were veiled references to their 'close' relationships but they were never overt and never ostracized from the family.
Great post. Very well thought out and beautifully put.
I, too, am continually amazed that this is such a huge issue. Before this was ever on the radar on a larger level I had a friend who fell in love with her college roommate. It never even gave it a second thought. I remember sitting at the family dinner table (some holiday, lots of extended family) and saying I didn't get what the big deal was. My dick head cousin (pompous a55 on many levels) was appalled but none of the grown ups had much to say. Found out close to 30 yrs later that my 2 Aunties were partners (not blood relatives) and this was a hidden subject in the family. All the kids in my generation (except for the Dick) never questioned their relationship. No one was polluted, all of us are heterosexual (as far as I know) but if we weren't it wouldn't be a big deal.
I do genealogy as a hobby and in every generation of my family- both sides, until this one, there were people partnered with a same sex person living for yrs together acting like a couples. When I ask about the target person there were veiled references to their 'close' relationships but they were never overt and never ostracized from the family.
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
I commented earlier that the poligamy girl is not "normal" there have been some comments about "what is normal". I didn't find the posts to quote.
Why isn't it normal? (and this goes for straight or gay marriage, works for both) I have always thought that marriage is a committment, a committment to 1 other person, the 1 person that you want to be with, support and love for the rest of your life. The one person in this world that would do absolutely anything for (until you have children, of course). The one person that you can go to for ANY problem, the 1 person that you want to be there for everything in your life. If you make the committment to multiple people, it is not special anymore, it is diluted. You can't unconditionally love 2 partners, in my opinion. Marriage bonds 2 people, makes 2 people 1. If a person is already bonded to another, how can they then give their entire self to another person....the answer is, they can't. This is against what I believe marriage is actually defined as, and I don't think gay marriage is against it, which is why I am not opposed to that.
I commented earlier that the poligamy girl is not "normal" there have been some comments about "what is normal". I didn't find the posts to quote.
Why isn't it normal? (and this goes for straight or gay marriage, works for both) I have always thought that marriage is a committment, a committment to 1 other person, the 1 person that you want to be with, support and love for the rest of your life. The one person in this world that would do absolutely anything for (until you have children, of course). The one person that you can go to for ANY problem, the 1 person that you want to be there for everything in your life. If you make the committment to multiple people, it is not special anymore, it is diluted. You can't unconditionally love 2 partners, in my opinion. Marriage bonds 2 people, makes 2 people 1. If a person is already bonded to another, how can they then give their entire self to another person....the answer is, they can't. This is against what I believe marriage is actually defined as, and I don't think gay marriage is against it, which is why I am not opposed to that.
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
I see you're part of the crowd where your arbitrary line for who should be allowed to marry is fine, but others' lines aren't.
Which is fine. History is hardly an arbiter of what is true or right.
I see you're part of the crowd where your arbitrary line for who should be allowed to marry is fine, but others' lines aren't.
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
My line doesn't cause harm. Mine doesn't seek to interfere in the lives of others, it seeks to enable and fulfill lives. Mine is actually more Christian or God-like than many who hide behind religion.
And I don't practice any religion. I'm just a good guy.
There. Now I'm up on a cross.
My line doesn't cause harm. Mine doesn't seek to interfere in the lives of others, it seeks to enable and fulfill lives. Mine is actually more Christian or God-like than many who hide behind religion.
And I don't practice any religion. I'm just a good guy.
There. Now I'm up on a cross.
- Status