Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

But, it's totally ok for the other side to get way more wound up about it, to the extent people are harrassed, are fired from jobs, etc. for not thinking the right thing about this issue? Intolerance isn't a one way street.

This I'll actually agree with on many levels. Staunch liberals are some of the most intolerant people I've ever met. Right there neck and neck with their conservative counterparts.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

This I'll actually agree with on many levels. Staunch liberals are some of the most intolerant people I've ever met. Right there neck and neck with their conservative counterparts.

This. Both sides have people who are unable to think and acknowledge the other side's view.

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.

This didn't answer the question posed


"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?"

and I have to say I was curious to know the answer to the actual question.

I don't have a yuck reaction- frankly the first thing I think about is not who a person goes to bed with. It isn't the 2nd, 3rd or 4th thing I think about. Not really on my radar screen.
Religion- again- not an issue. The Pope said it well. I think The Holy Trinity would be a bit frustrated that this is a focus when the bulk of the Bible was focused on how to behave well toward others.
As a person fascinated by history and a woman who has been affected by views that have liberalized (I can now wear pants, get divorced, get protection from domestic violence, etc) there has never been a status quo that spanned all cultures and many of prior 'always been' ideas would not allowed me to enjoy the success I have in life.

 

[Bob Gray]

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.

That's quite an advertisement for yourself!


However, it interferes with people who don't fit within its lines of what it says is ok. As does inherently any rule that sets some sort of line saying what is ok or not ok. At this point I'm not even really referring to the marriage issue specifically, but just logical reasoning.

 

[Bob Gray]

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?"

and I have to say I was curious to know the answer to the actual question.

That's not the specific subject I'm discussing, but I appreciate your interest in what I might say about it. I'll leave those who may be discussing this particular question to respond to your inquiry.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

That's quite an advertisement for yourself!


However, it interferes with people who don't fit within its lines of what it says is ok. As does inherently any rule that sets some sort of line saying what is ok or not ok. At this point I'm not even really referring to the marriage issue specifically, but just logical reasoning.

This is a great question for an ethics class. How does one decide what is OK or not in society? Libertarian view is that you should be able to do anything you want as long as it doesn't cause harm but what constitutes harm?

The thing I think that seems to be most like the current scenario would the racial issues when I was younger. At the time I remember hearing a lot of Biblical references to the wrongness of the concept of 'mixing'. Interracial marriage was shocking. Even going to school together was not really done. I clearly remember when the Boston schools were being desegregated. A certain subset of people felt this was very harmful and felt so strongly they committed violence to prevent the 'harm' from happening and felt righteous in doing so. Now you would be hard pressed to find people who would be willing to commit that violence in this area. There are still prejudices but they are no longer socially acceptable except in the extreme fringes of society. To quote the Bible in support of segregation right now would seem very odd.

 

[XYZ]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

But, it's totally ok for the other side to get way more wound up about it, to the extent people are harrassed, are fired from jobs, etc. for not thinking the right thing about this issue? Intolerance isn't a one way street.

Nowhere did I imply such a thing. My comments were referring specifically to the efforts expended by some to prevent gay marriage from becoming legal. Overall...trust me, I work in a building with about 600 burnout liberals, some of whom can't even walk straight nor hold their heads upright and still for more than a few seconds at a time. Well aware of the bile they are able to spew. Heck, as I've posted before, the only time I watch political television is when I cross a certain threshold of drunk. Then it's time for MSNBC because the level of righteous smug is like no other and it's amusing. Like The Onion...but real.

Related to that point but not gay marriage, anyone ever spent time on an online dating site? Back in the day I saw dozens if not a hundred or more women's profiles that demanded her date must be a liberal, but honestly never came across a single woman requiring her date be a conservative. Anecdotal, but it always stood out to me. Liberals definitely take the cake when it comes to finding joy in sniffing their own socks...and then letting the rest of the world know how great they smell.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Nowhere did I imply such a thing. My comments were referring specifically to the efforts expended by some to prevent gay marriage from becoming legal. Overall...trust me, I work in a building with about 600 burnout liberals, some of whom can't even walk straight nor hold their heads upright and still for more than a few seconds at a time. Well aware of the bile they are able to spew. Heck, as I've posted before, the only time I watch political television is when I cross a certain threshold of drunk. Then it's time for MSNBC because the level of righteous smug is like no other and it's amusing. Like The Onion...but real.

Related to that point but not gay marriage, anyone ever spent time on an online dating site? Back in the day I saw dozens if not a hundred or more women's profiles that demanded her date must be a liberal, but honestly never came across a single woman requiring her date be a conservative. Anecdotal, but it always stood out to me. Liberals definitely take the cake when it comes to finding joy in sniffing their own socks...and then letting the rest of the world know how great they smell.

Fair enough. I just have lots of experiences on here where people moan to no end about any misbehavior on the conservative side, but have a total blind eye to misdoings on the other side of the ledger. Common sense tells you that humans are humans and that, whatever issue is at hand, there will be folks on both sides that won't be reasonable or respectful toward those they disagree with.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

This is a great question for an ethics class. How does one decide what is OK or not in society? Libertarian view is that you should be able to do anything you want as long as it doesn't cause harm but what constitutes harm?

The thing I think that seems to be most like the current scenario would the racial issues when I was younger. At the time I remember hearing a lot of Biblical references to the wrongness of the concept of 'mixing'. Interracial marriage was shocking. Even going to school together was not really done. I clearly remember when the Boston schools were being desegregated. A certain subset of people felt this was very harmful and felt so strongly they committed violence to prevent the 'harm' from happening and felt righteous in doing so. Now you would be hard pressed to find people who would be willing to commit that violence in this area. There are still prejudices but they are no longer socially acceptable except in the extreme fringes of society. To quote the Bible in support of segregation right now would seem very odd.

I don't see this as being at all like the racial issues our country has gone through. Nobody is saying gays should live separately or have separate bathrooms or anything remotely like that. We all work and live around them and I don't see anyone saying differently, so I don't see the mixing side of things. If anything, races are more separate from one another than gays are today. I think you're making an unfounded leap to apply that to the marriage question. But, I respect and appreciate the way you present your thoughts.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I don't see this as being at all like the racial issues our country has gone through. Nobody is saying gays should live separately or have separate bathrooms or anything remotely like that. We all work and live around them and I don't see anyone saying differently, so I don't see the mixing side of things. If anything, races are more separate from one another than gays are today. I think you're making an unfounded leap to apply that to the marriage question. But, I respect and appreciate the way you present your thoughts.

I would respectfully disagree. -In the context of marriage there were significant efforts to forbid inter-racial marriage, including laws that needed to be challenged in court.
-There were separate bathrooms for black people- in many parts of our society gay people are ostracized and if people had their way they would not be allowed in bathrooms, in schools or anywhere they could convert people (think of all the locker-room issues in the last few yrs). NPR did a piece on that not too long ago and there were a lot of callers advocating banning gay people from bathrooms and locker rooms as they might behave unnaturally or get a rush at seeing someone at a urinal.
-In the past there were people who moved so they could pass as a white person outside of their birthplace where people knew they had negro blood. The difference is gay people can 'pass' as they don't have a skin color to label them but if identified either by coming out or someone is suspicious they need to deal with all sorts of bigotry.

As a society I think we have become more tolerant as a whole to those different than us but certainly not everywhere in this country. In my area things are pretty tame but that wasn't the case all that long ago. When I was younger (late 20s) I was walking in an area of Boston with my friend (who was lesbian). We were a bit 'happy' and unsteady on our feet and walking arm in arm. When we got to a certain area she was very careful to tell me we would need to hold ourselves up as people had been beaten up because they were suspected of being gay. Sure enough there were guys who had something to say about us as we were walking. Scary. Gave me a real appreciation of how on guard she always had to be.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I would respectfully disagree. -In the context of marriage there were significant efforts to forbid inter-racial marriage, including laws that needed to be challenged in court.
-There were separate bathrooms for black people- in many parts of our society gay people are ostracized and if people had their way they would not be allowed in bathrooms, in schools or anywhere they could convert people (think of all the locker-room issues in the last few yrs). NPR did a piece on that not too long ago and there were a lot of callers advocating banning gay people from bathrooms and locker rooms as they might behave unnaturally or get a rush at seeing someone at a urinal.
-In the past there were people who moved so they could pass as a white person outside of their birthplace where people knew they had negro blood. The difference is gay people can 'pass' as they don't have a skin color to label them but if identified either by coming out or someone is suspicious they need to deal with all sorts of bigotry.

As a society I think we have become more tolerant as a whole to those different than us but certainly not everywhere in this country. In my area things are pretty tame but that wasn't the case all that long ago. When I was younger (late 20s) I was walking in an area of Boston with my friend (who was lesbian). We were a bit 'happy' and unsteady on our feet and walking arm in arm. When we got to a certain area she was very careful to tell me we would need to hold ourselves up as people had been beaten up because they were suspected of being gay. Sure enough there were guys who had something to say about us as we were walking. Scary. Gave me a real appreciation of how on guard she always had to be.

I've never heard anyone propose to not let gay people use the same bathrooms as other people. That's ridiculous. The only fight I've heard of at all is whether transgender people should get to use whatever bathroom they identify with. I think maybe you're confusing those two items?

Again your link is very tenuous. The opposition to interracial marriage wasn't about marriage specifically, but about race views and was just one of many unseemly tentacles of racist views.

I live in a fairly conservative state (though less conservative in many ways that often made out to be), and I work and live around gay folks and I don't see anyone treating them differently than anyone else. There certainly was more of that in decades past, and I am glad there is less of it (as no one should be bullied and mistreated). If anything it's flipping the other way, where if you say anything remotely unsupportive of any gay issue, you are now subject to mistreatment and harrassment. Like the folks in California who lost jobs because they voted the wrong way on Prop 8. But, again, because there was more bullying in a past era has little to do with whether gay marriage should be legal or not. I just don't see the linkage, though the things you cite certainly might be used to get some emotional sympathy for the cause.

 

[LynahFan]

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.

Just shows how little attention you've been paying. There is always a "definition" of marriage - it's a concept completely made up by humans. You can't really have your own definition of a star or an electron, but the definition of marriage (i.e. the line betwtween what is and what is not marriage) has always been fluid. Posts I've made that either implicitly or explicitly acknowledge that there is a definition of marriage that is arbitrarily defined:

#438
#476
#759
#783

And the clincher, #785: "Well, that's a policy question, and I have no problem with arbitrary limits agreed upon through the democratic process."

In fact, you originally tried to argue that the entire "problem" with allowing gay marriage is that it set an arbitrary limit, while limiting marriage to 1 man-1 woman DID NOT (post #780). So you've now completely reversed - you're now in favor of arbitrary limits but you think that the pro-gay marriage crowd is not.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

blah blah blah

You misunderstand what I'm saying in too many ways to take the time to correct.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Teflon Bob...

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Teflon Bob...

Yawn.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Teflon Bob...

Well, at least this time he explicitly stated that he refused to engage rather than just changing the subject. Baby steps...

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Well, at least this time he explicitly stated that he refused to engage rather than just changing the subject. Baby steps...

Yawn.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Just shows how little attention you've been paying. There is always a "definition" of marriage - it's a concept completely made up by humans. You can't really have your own definition of a star or an electron, but the definition of marriage (i.e. the line betwtween what is and what is not marriage) has always been fluid. Posts I've made that either implicitly or explicitly acknowledge that there is a definition of marriage that is arbitrarily defined:

#438
#476
#759
#783

And the clincher, #785: "Well, that's a policy question, and I have no problem with arbitrary limits agreed upon through the democratic process."

In fact, you originally tried to argue that the entire "problem" with allowing gay marriage is that it set an arbitrary limit, while limiting marriage to 1 man-1 woman DID NOT (post #780). So you've now completely reversed - you're now in favor of arbitrary limits but you think that the pro-gay marriage crowd is not.

You misunderstand what I'm saying in too many ways to take the time to correct.

Then you're making a poor showing of explaining yourself as I find most of LynahFan's points here valid.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Then you're making a poor showing of explaining yourself as I find most of LynahFan's points here valid.

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).

 

[Gurtholfin]

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).

Consistency? We have to entertain your straw man argument in order to be deemed consistent?

That's akin to saying that pot can't be made legal because then we'll have to make meth legal.


Just stop. We know you're opposed.

You won't say why you're opposed, presumably for fear of backlash. Instead you resort to straw man fallacies.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Consistency? We have to entertain your straw man argument in order to be deemed consistent?

That's akin to saying that pot can't be made legal because then we'll have to make meth legal.


Just stop. We know you're opposed.

You won't say why you're opposed, presumably for fear of backlash. Instead you resort to straw man fallacies.

Teflon Gurtholfin


See what I get when I respond substantively St. Clown?