What's new
By:
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?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

FlagDUDE08 said:
I believe when BG says "traditional", he means between one adult man and one adult woman.
Click to expand...

But, as I have pointed out before, gender is not binary. Plus all of the other changes in the legal definition of marriage over our country's history.
 
Bob Gray said:
But if it's a right, then your concerns about taxpayer support and all shouldn't be able to impinge on it. We're talking about peoples' freedom to be who they are and all that after all, aren't we? Sounds awful big brotherish, but I guess that's ok with some people as long as big brother makes decisions they like.

It is a little entertaining to see folks who pushed for gay marriage arguing against allowing marriage and recognition for other non-traditional relationship structures.
Click to expand...

The govt and society define a right such as this. Much like how you can't get pulled over and hit 100 proof on the breathalizer test, but then tell the cop he's infringing upon your freedom to consume as much of a legal product (alchohol) as you please. It doesn't work that way. Society defines the rules, and the rules say no polygamy. This isn't a constitutional ban I don't believe mind you, so if opinions changed perhaps it could become legal in the US (unlike slavery for example which is expressly forbidden).
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

WisconsinWildcard said:
But, as I have pointed out before, gender is not binary. Plus all of the other changes in the legal definition of marriage over our country's history.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to transsexuals? Or sex change operations? Or perhaps hermaphrodites (which are generally considered to be male because of the existence of Y)? What other definitions are you referring to?
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

FlagDUDE08 said:
Are you referring to transsexuals? Or sex change operations? Or perhaps hermaphrodites (which are generally considered to be male because of the existence of Y)? What other definitions are you referring to?
Click to expand...

From an earlier post:

I really want to know your definition of gender because you believe marriage is between a man and a woman. In order to have that viewpoint, I believe you need to have a fairly solid idea on what constitutes a specific gender.

For me, I do not have a good enough definition of gender to base gender specific rules on who you can or cannot marry. What is more important? Genotype (XX, XY, XXY, XO etc)? Phenotype (observable characteristics like genitalia)? Is it the gender the person best identifies? Is it based on what the doctor and parents decide for their child when born with ambiguous genitalia?

I do not think these questions have absolute answers. Biology informs us that gender (like sexuality) is a diverse spectrum instead of a rigid dichotomy. There are women out there who are XY. Should they not be allowed to marry a man because they share too similar genotypes? (Not talking close cousins here but sex chromosome makeup).

For me, there is too much uncertainty out there to continue to make rigid distinctions. If you believe God created this wonderful experiment, I think you have to believe that God created the tremendous diversity we see. With that, he also must have created pretty darn ambiguous gender lines. What is the difference between a clitori s and a peni s? Not much actually. A dash of hormones at the right time. Lacking that, you have a problem on your hands if you want to put that person in a rigid category.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

FlagDUDE08 said:
Are you referring to transsexuals? Or sex change operations? Or perhaps hermaphrodites (which are generally considered to be male because of the existence of Y)? What other definitions are you referring to?
Click to expand...

And as far as hermaphrodites, I would use the word intersex to describe them. Not for political correctness necessarily but because biologically, it is a more accurate description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

WisconsinWildcard said:
From an earlier post:

I really want to know your definition of gender because you believe marriage is between a man and a woman. In order to have that viewpoint, I believe you need to have a fairly solid idea on what constitutes a specific gender.

For me, I do not have a good enough definition of gender to base gender specific rules on who you can or cannot marry. What is more important? Genotype (XX, XY, XXY, XO etc)? Phenotype (observable characteristics like genitalia)? Is it the gender the person best identifies? Is it based on what the doctor and parents decide for their child when born with ambiguous genitalia?

I do not think these questions have absolute answers. Biology informs us that gender (like sexuality) is a diverse spectrum instead of a rigid dichotomy. There are women out there who are XY. Should they not be allowed to marry a man because they share too similar genotypes? (Not talking close cousins here but sex chromosome makeup).

For me, there is too much uncertainty out there to continue to make rigid distinctions. If you believe God created this wonderful experiment, I think you have to believe that God created the tremendous diversity we see. With that, he also must have created pretty darn ambiguous gender lines. What is the difference between a clitori s and a peni s? Not much actually. A dash of hormones at the right time. Lacking that, you have a problem on your hands if you want to put that person in a rigid category.
Click to expand...

Using the ends to justify the means again?

Is there actually any evidence of people being born with just Y chromosomes (whether 1 or more)?
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

FlagDUDE08 said:
Using the ends to justify the means again?

Is there actually any evidence of people being born with just Y chromosomes (whether 1 or more)?
Click to expand...

I would argue more like using reality to inform decisions. I am not sure where you got the idea of a single Y chromosome. I understand you are not medically trained so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume my phrasing was a bit confusing.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

WisconsinWildcard said:
Unless you're black and want to marry white ;)
Click to expand...

We have to use human history and what has been accepted as a guide to what is right. That's why heterosexual marriage allowing marriage between races should be the definition, as that has what it has been throughout human history, with human history defined as 1968 to 2013.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

WisconsinWildcard said:
I would argue more like using reality to inform decisions. I am not sure where you got the idea of a single Y chromosome. I understand you are not medically trained so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume my phrasing was a bit confusing.
Click to expand...

That's what could happen in your example women who are XY.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

FlagDUDE08 said:
That's what could happen in your example women who are XY.
Click to expand...

In that case, they would not just have a Y chromosome as they would also have an X chromosome. YO genotypes are incompatible with life.

Individuals who are XY with androgen insensitivity will grow up phenotypically as a female. This can actually go undetected until an adult female is unable to conceive and seeks medical testing.

Additionally, there is a concept in biology known as mosaicism. Simply put, normally an individual has the same genetic makeup in all of their cells. In humans with mosaicism, somewhere in development, a precursor cell has a different genetic makeup (and every cell that comes from that precursor cell). Therefore, there are individuals who are XX for some cells and XO in other cells. Or XY in some cells and XO in others. Depending on the cells, these individuals could be anywhere on the spectrum of external genitalia.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

LynahFan said:
Not just sex. There are lots of arbitrary age cutoffs codified in law (drinking, voting, serving in office, etc). Bob's argument is "If we repleal Prohibition, then we'll have to let 4-year-olds have keggers just for the sake of consistency." Well, 80 years on, and we're still waiting for someone to propose a law to achieve that consistency - how long do you suppose we should wait, Bob?

Bob's argument is as nonsensical as if I came to the conclusion, "Since Bob thinks two men should not be allowed to marry, then to be consistent, he must believe that no one should be allowed to get married." Gay marriage proponents want to allow marriage for some, but not for all, just as gay marriage opponents want to outlaw marriage for some, but not for all.
Click to expand...
To help you, and narrow the rabbit trails, I'm talking about what types of marriage are allowed, or not for consenting adults.

The inconsistency is staggering. Expanding marriage to include gays is a fundamental right, but expanding it to include others, such a polygamists, is fine and dandy to not allow.

"no one should be allowed to get married"? What are you talking about?

If people had a shred of consistency, you'd have to support polygamous marriage for adults to the same extent you support it for homosexuals. Of course that would punch yet another hole in what is really little more than a popularity contest.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Bob Gray said:
I'm ignoring your rabbit trails, which distract from how this applies to most, most, most people.
Click to expand...
No, it actually addresses a pretty important question. Whose definition of "traditional marriage" are you using? You aren't using anything from the Bible, as it was common for men to have many wives (and concubines on the side). You aren't using the "tradition" of using marriages as business transactions or a way to curry favor among the ruling class. So one has to wonder from where this idea of "traditional marriage" originates.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Bob Gray said:
I'm ignoring your rabbit trails, which distract from how this applies to most, most, most people.
Click to expand...

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births
Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births

Care to define most, most, most people?
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Bob Gray said:
To help you, and narrow the rabbit trails, I'm talking about what types of marriage are allowed, or not for consenting adults.

The inconsistency is staggering. Expanding marriage to include gays is a fundamental right, but expanding it to include others, such a polygamists, is fine and dandy to not allow.

"no one should be allowed to get married"? What are you talking about?

If people had a shred of consistency, you'd have to support polygamous marriage for adults to the same extent you support it for homosexuals. Of course that would punch yet another hole in what is really little more than a popularity contest.
Click to expand...

I don't think you answered the question. Why is it ok to limit marriage to 1 man 1 woman and not ok to limit it to two people? It's the same argument.
 
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?
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

ScoobyDoo said:
I don't think you answered the question. Why is it ok to limit marriage to 1 man 1 woman and not ok to limit it to two people? It's the same argument.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top