| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/28/2011 03:23:07 PM · #5451 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Are parthenogenic females allowed to marry themselves? |
They can Mary. ;-) |
|
|
|
06/28/2011 03:50:40 PM · #5452 |
|
|
|
06/28/2011 03:56:30 PM · #5453 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it would be an interesting conversation to ask people what the purpose of marriage is? Forget whether it is straight/gay. Why do we have marriage? Has this even been discussed in this thread? |
I'll take a shot:
Marriage: Covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. |
As per usual, nobody else bites. They are just happy to knock down... |
|
|
|
06/28/2011 04:09:48 PM · #5454 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it would be an interesting conversation to ask people what the purpose of marriage is? Forget whether it is straight/gay. Why do we have marriage? Has this even been discussed in this thread? |
I'll take a shot:
Marriage: Covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. |
As per usual, nobody else bites. They are just happy to knock down... |
I think the point is - any time you try to define the group you have to make too many exceptions. So why bother. All 50 states can't even agree on a minimum age, and then there's exceptions for parental consent. What makes you think they can sucessfully nail down anything else? |
|
|
|
06/28/2011 04:34:52 PM · #5455 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it would be an interesting conversation to ask people what the purpose of marriage is? Forget whether it is straight/gay. Why do we have marriage? Has this even been discussed in this thread? |
I'll take a shot:
Marriage: Covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. |
As per usual, nobody else bites. They are just happy to knock down... |
I think the point is - any time you try to define the group you have to make too many exceptions. So why bother. All 50 states can't even agree on a minimum age, and then there's exceptions for parental consent. What makes you think they can sucessfully nail down anything else? |
It's a good point, yet there are obvious exceptions. Nobody is looking to allow brother and sister to marry. Why not? It's purely a cultural taboo, especially if you start saying the sister has a hysterectomy. So we are forced to walk this gray uncomfortable line where we need some rules, but we don't want any more than necessary (and nobody can agree on what the necessary rules should be). |
|
|
|
06/28/2011 04:44:24 PM · #5456 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's a good point, yet there are obvious exceptions. Nobody is looking to allow brother and sister to marry. Why not? It's purely a cultural taboo, especially if you start saying the sister has a hysterectomy. So we are forced to walk this gray uncomfortable line where we need some rules, but we don't want any more than necessary (and nobody can agree on what the necessary rules should be). |
In a broad sense, all of the existing rules are OK, except that they currently are not applied equally to all persons regardless of gender. No one (practically speaking) is asking for legalizing incestuous marriage, plural marriage, child marriage (though this can be legal now), or any other changes other than to apply the current laws to every pair of citizens, regardless of their gender. |
|
|
|
06/28/2011 04:53:36 PM · #5457 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's a good point, yet there are obvious exceptions. Nobody is looking to allow brother and sister to marry. Why not? It's purely a cultural taboo, especially if you start saying the sister has a hysterectomy. So we are forced to walk this gray uncomfortable line where we need some rules, but we don't want any more than necessary (and nobody can agree on what the necessary rules should be). |
In a broad sense, all of the existing rules are OK, except that they currently are not applied equally to all persons regardless of gender. No one (practically speaking) is asking for legalizing incestuous marriage, plural marriage, child marriage (though this can be legal now), or any other changes other than to apply the current laws to every pair of citizens, regardless of their gender. |
Paul, this has been gone over literally a dozen times. It requires your own fundamental point of view for this argument to make sense. The opposition says that the marriage laws are already applied quite equally. A heterosexual man cannot marry another man (maybe for a tax shelter or naturalization status) and a homosexual man is free to marry a women (maybe he wants a child or a beard). The opposition says what is happening is a redefinition of a tranditional institution. I know that doesn't make sense in your mind and you don't even have to bother to rebut it (I'll assume the rebuttal already). Nobody is asking for legalizing incestuous marriage, but I was pointing out the exception to the philosophical rule. Everybody enjoyed showing Nullix his idea of marriage would not include sterile couples. It's just as easy to show some odd joinings with a libertarian view of marriage. The point is the exceptions probably are not that helpful since they will always exist.
Message edited by author 2011-06-28 16:54:38. |
|
|
|
06/28/2011 04:55:16 PM · #5458 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it would be an interesting conversation to ask people what the purpose of marriage is? Forget whether it is straight/gay. Why do we have marriage? Has this even been discussed in this thread? |
I'll take a shot:
Marriage: Covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. |
As per usual, nobody else bites. They are just happy to knock down... |
knock down what? That's only one definition of marriage that is pushed by certain groups. It is by no means a complete and over-arching definition that works for all of humanity.
Outside of same-sex marriage, there are plenty of people that would (under this specific definition) be dismissed from being able to be married even if they were a male and a female. This has also been brought up time and again and dismissed.
Face it. As much as you personally rue the eventuality, it IS an eventuality. Everyone with their slippery-slope idiocy can just go hide out under your beds if you have to.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2011 05:23:39 PM · #5459 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Face it. As much as you personally rue the eventuality, it IS an eventuality. Everyone with their slippery-slope idiocy can just go hide out under your beds if you have to. |
Frankly I see it as a possibility, but not an eventuality. The low-hanging state fruit has been picked. You aren't likely to see gay marriage in that central North-South stripe from North Dakota to Texas anytime soon. When the Supreme Court eventually hears the case for/against DOMA, then we may see some tidal change, but maybe not. The court is certainly more conservative than it was even four years ago and it will probably all come down to Kennedy. It also depends on what they are exactly ruling on. Maybe they say the feds don't have the right to regulate marriage, but then leave it up to the states to say as they will. That wouldn't move the ball in either direction. And while it's a natural feeling to dislike a ruling you don't agree with, I'm sure my life will go on if it happens. In the meantime, your post or posts like it talking about the inevitability of such and such is just posturing and chest thumping. Nothing is inevitable except for death and taxes, right?
Message edited by author 2011-06-28 17:25:19. |
|
|
|
06/28/2011 05:32:13 PM · #5460 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Paul, this has been gone over literally a dozen times. It requires your own fundamental point of view for this argument to make sense. The opposition says that the marriage laws are already applied quite equally. A heterosexual man cannot marry another man (maybe for a tax shelter or naturalization status) and a homosexual man is free to marry a women (maybe he wants a child or a beard). |
Yeah... just as Jews were free to marry other Jews and African Americans were free to marry other African Americans before those laws against interfaith and interracial marriage were struck down as unconstitutional. It was a stupid argument then, and it's even more stupid when repeated. |
|
|
|
06/28/2011 05:47:11 PM · #5461 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it would be an interesting conversation to ask people what the purpose of marriage is? Forget whether it is straight/gay. Why do we have marriage? Has this even been discussed in this thread? |
I'll take a shot:
Marriage: Covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. |
As per usual, nobody else bites. They are just happy to knock down... |
Balderdash... with the exception of procreation, every single one of the factors posted are readily identifiable in same sex marriages.
There is absolutely no "knock down" in this instance, simply the recognition of the facts at hand.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/28/2011 06:10:20 PM · #5462 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Yeah... just as Jews were free to marry other Jews and African Americans were free to marry other African Americans before those laws against interfaith and interracial marriage were struck down as unconstitutional. It was a stupid argument then, and it's even more stupid when repeated. |
Mmm hmmm. It was a stupid argument then wasn't it? |
|
|
|
06/30/2011 09:54:35 AM · #5463 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the fight was lost when "no fault" divorce was introduced. |
That fight was never fought. Anybody remember widespread state and federal bills aimed at preventing divorce or massive ad campaigns against adulterous political candidates as a group? I don't. Any no-fault divorce judges voted off the bench? Nope. Divorcee bashing? Don't ask if you were remarried and don't tell? Fears of remarried couples adopting children? No, no and no. "Saving marriage" is only a cheap excuse to justify unwarranted discrimination with no basis in reality. |
Yes. It was called the status quo. No fault divorce was introduced to make it easier to obtain divorce. The campaigns you speak of did not exist because there was no need. The fight actually continues according to the wiki. The fathers' rights movement is fighting to put limits on no-fault divorce when children are involved. |
Gay, straight, open... I find the humor here in the very fact that "fighting" doesn't bring 2 people any closer to maintaining a healthy marriage.
Fight all you want, but there will still be adultery. Fight all you want but there will still be divorce. Even if you made it illegal, doesn't mean people would really stay married, only on paper. And fighting gays isn't going to make them love each other or want to get married any less. It's not going to change who they are. And why anyone would want to is beyond me.
The point was made earlier, why all this funding to "protect" marriage by fighting gays? But the wrong follow up questions was asked... I believe it was asked why there wasn't a fight against adultery and divorce. Wrong question indeed.
Why not fund courses to teach people about a healthy marriage? Why not fund programs to help married couples in need? Or any number of a million other uses I could think of to use millions of dollars for that WOULD actually help to truly protect marriage, as best as anyone can.
Marriage is a rocky road for anyone. I don't see the point in stickin your nose where it doesn't belong, trying to muddle with other people's relationships. It's just kind of sick. |
|
|
|
06/30/2011 12:48:43 PM · #5464 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Why not fund courses to teach people about a healthy marriage? Why not fund programs to help married couples in need? Or any number of a million other uses I could think of to use millions of dollars for that WOULD actually help to truly protect marriage, as best as anyone can. |
As mentioned, this IS happening every single day. Marriage counselling. Couples retreats. Sermon series. Weeknight classes. Believe me, helping people with their marriage has been a top priority in at least every church I've attended.
Or maybe you are saying you want the government to fund this? (not quite sure if that's what you mean). |
|
|
|
06/30/2011 03:58:07 PM · #5465 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the fight was lost when "no fault" divorce was introduced. |
Something also to ponder about divorce. The contraceptive mentality has greatly hurt marriage. It has become so entrenched that for most people sex and babies are essentially unrelated topics. Reinforcing this separation are artificial conception techniques, which perpetuate a view of children as products. In principle, we should be able to order them up when we want them, and reject them when we donĂ¢€™t.
Once sex is divorced from procreation, it becomes much harder to see why sexual union implies a binding commitment. If sex means a potential pregnancy, obviously sex is a momentous act potentially ushering in long-term joint responsibilities binding the parties to one another for the sake of their potential offspring. Giving and sharing recedes, and taking pleasure and fulfillment comes to the fore.
It's no wonder why we see a brake down of marriage since the 70's. |
|
|
|
06/30/2011 04:39:13 PM · #5466 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
It's no wonder why we see a brake down of marriage since the 70's. |
And yet when people demand the right to make a lifelong commitment to each other you want to "put the brakes" on their plan ... :-( |
|
|
|
06/30/2011 06:24:17 PM · #5467 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the fight was lost when "no fault" divorce was introduced. |
Something also to ponder about divorce. The contraceptive mentality has greatly hurt marriage. It has become so entrenched that for most people sex and babies are essentially unrelated topics. |
Really now... and exactly how was this brought about. What relation is there between contraception and marriage. From reading your comment I get the very distinct impression that your definition of "Sex" truly is limited.
Originally posted by Nullix:
Reinforcing this separation are artificial conception techniques, which perpetuate a view of children as products. In principle, we should be able to order them up when we want them, and reject them when we donĂ¢€™t. |
Now this comment is one that I truly do take personal exception to, as I happen to be the very proud father of a young person that was born as the result of an in-vitro fertilization procedure. I can assure you that my child was never considered a product and has and continues to be the pride of my life and the focus of a great deal of love and affection.
You may not be aware of this fact, but contraception has been around for hundreds of years, and rejecting off-springs, as you so aptly put it, can in a lot of instances be the best procedures to follow. I don't know if you are at all familiar with life in an orphanage or the plight of poor homeless children, but I for one would not to see children born in situations where the parents cannot provide for them.
Originally posted by Nullix:
Once sex is divorced from procreation, it becomes much harder to see why sexual union implies a binding commitment. |
Surely you can't believe that a committed relationship is based solely on sex? If indeed it were, then there is a boatload of us older folks that should simply forget about marriage in its' entirety.
Originally posted by Nullix:
If sex means a potential pregnancy, obviously sex is a momentous act potentially ushering in long-term joint responsibilities binding the parties to one another for the sake of their potential offspring. |
Yes indeed, and all those people that have children were, are and will continue to be happily married eh?
What about all those poor young single mothers... they got pregnant... and where is that commitment you mention. Yes indeed having children truly is the glue that holds marriages together and is the salvation of society.
Lastly, what does any of this have to do with gay marriages. As I mentioned before, with the exception of procreation, all of the aspects of the marriage exist in such unions... and if we factor in the possibility of adoption, then all of the attributes normally associated with the concept of family are present.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/30/2011 06:54:07 PM · #5468 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Once sex is divorced from procreation, it becomes much harder to see why sexual union implies a binding commitment....Giving and sharing recedes, and taking pleasure and fulfillment comes to the fore. |
In the context of this thread ("Gay Marriage" is the ostensible topic, and you are clearly against it) I find this to be a very revealing snippet. I must be pretty dense, because it has only just occurred to me that as far as you are concerned, the only reason gay people get together is so they can have sex. You apparently believe that all gay unions are overwhelmingly sexual in nature, with any sense of commitment, binding or otherwise, taking a back seat to the fulfillment of sordid and illicit desires.
I'm sure I'm exaggerating your stance here (I certainly HOPE that's the case) but this is what I'm reading between the lines of your arguments. And it makes me shake my head in dismay, because this is no more true of gay relationships than it is of heterosexual ones.
Way to strip a whole class of people of their humanity! :-( It's like the old arguments justifying segregation; as long as the "other race" can be characterized as less-than-human, other-than-us, discrimination is not a problem.
Right?
R. |
|
|
|
06/30/2011 07:13:21 PM · #5469 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You apparently believe that all gay unions are overwhelmingly sexual in nature... |
Not that I disagree with everything you said Robert, but clearly this does play a role, does it not? There is no movement, large or small, for heterosexual men to be able to marry each other. Why not? I'm sure there are many, many platonic friendships between men that are very, very strong. Why is there no desire for these relationships to be made "official" through marriage? What makes the difference? It's an interesting question. |
|
|
|
06/30/2011 07:21:54 PM · #5470 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You apparently believe that all gay unions are overwhelmingly sexual in nature... |
Not that I disagree with everything you said Robert, but clearly this does play a role, does it not? There is no movement, large or small, for heterosexual men to be able to marry each other. Why not? I'm sure there are many, many platonic friendships between men that are very, very strong. Why is there no desire for these relationships to be made "official" through marriage? What makes the difference? It's an interesting question. |
Probably because heterosexual men have such an overwhelming fear of being identified as gay. ;D |
|
|
|
06/30/2011 07:24:50 PM · #5471 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You apparently believe that all gay unions are overwhelmingly sexual in nature... |
Not that I disagree with everything you said Robert, but clearly this does play a role, does it not? There is no movement, large or small, for heterosexual men to be able to marry each other. Why not? I'm sure there are many, many platonic friendships between men that are very, very strong. Why is there no desire for these relationships to be made "official" through marriage? What makes the difference? It's an interesting question. |
Let me add that there have been many older women that I know personally in companionship relationships (live together, share expenses, etc.) who if they could have married simply for the benefits of next of kin (medical decisions, inheritance, etc.) would have done so. Nothing whatsoever to do with sex. |
|
|
|
06/30/2011 07:28:50 PM · #5472 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You apparently believe that all gay unions are overwhelmingly sexual in nature... |
Not that I disagree with everything you said Robert, but clearly this does play a role, does it not? There is no movement, large or small, for heterosexual men to be able to marry each other. Why not? I'm sure there are many, many platonic friendships between men that are very, very strong. Why is there no desire for these relationships to be made "official" through marriage? What makes the difference? It's an interesting question. |
Let me add that there have been many older women that I know personally in companionship relationships (live together, share expenses, etc.) who if they could have married simply for the benefits of next of kin (medical decisions, inheritance, etc.) would have done so. Nothing whatsoever to do with sex. |
Possible, I guess, but if so there is no vocal movement for this. I have never seen or heard of a news clipping, anecdote or story where someone has actually said "we want to marry for X reason" even though they are hetero- or asexual. I allow for the possible exception, but it would pale in comparison to the number of gays who want to marry (though that number is also, in reality, much smaller than we imagine it to be). It strikes me that there is a difference and the obvious difference is the sexual nature of the relationship.
Message edited by author 2011-06-30 19:29:21. |
|
|
|
06/30/2011 07:45:26 PM · #5473 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have never seen or heard of a news clipping, anecdote or story where someone has actually said "we want to marry for X reason" even though they are hetero- or asexual. I allow for the possible exception, but it would pale in comparison to the number of gays who want to marry (though that number is also, in reality, much smaller than we imagine it to be). It strikes me that there is a difference and the obvious difference is the sexual nature of the relationship. |
Then you haven't been paying attention.
I'm pretty sure that back when San Francisco Mayor Newsome set off this latest civil rights conflagration, the very first couple to receive a marriage license was a pair of "little old ladies" who'd been together for some forty or fifty years already ... somehow I suspect there were some other aspects to their relationship besides the hot sex ...
Message edited by author 2011-06-30 19:52:34. |
|
|
|
06/30/2011 08:15:10 PM · #5474 |
Not to mention that any time two people of the same sex self-identify as "wanting to marry" that translates as "We're gay!" to the straight world. So the lack of a movement is no surprise.
R.
ETA: Anyway, we don't need a movement, do we? We already HAVE one. It's a movement for "same sex marriage", not "homosexual marriage". If they win the battle, which seems already to be happening, well then at that point any two individuals pretty much can marry each other.
Message edited by author 2011-06-30 20:17:09. |
|
|
|
06/30/2011 08:20:33 PM · #5475 |
| The one thing this thread has shown me... Group A is never going to understand Group B, and vice versa. Really is rather pointless to even discuss, isn't it? |
|
