]For clairification: I don´t belong in the "God" or "evolution" category. I belong to the combined society/social construction/whatever you want category
I have nothing against loving anyone, if we keep love and sexual urges seperate. That is not the case. Read the earlier posts about being 'wired into being gay' and 'god made gay people'. Isn't that blame?
My definition of love is
# A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
Your defintion of love is
# A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
# 1. Sexual passion.
2. Sexual intercourse.
3. A love affair.
Both of our definitions are listed in the dictionary. You are entitled to your opinions, I am to mine. So let's not get down to personal arguments. Try and educate me into agreeing to your views because I am not 'wired' like you are. I did not grow up with gay friends, so I fail to see your viewpoint.
On a note: I have no problems with the mentioned court ruling or with gay marraiges as they really don't hurt anyone. I do think the whole concept is messed up though and that is the opinion which is shared here.
So, regarding that concept, should the argument be made (as we all know it will) would you agree with re-defining marriage to include other kinds of relationships, polygamy, between family members etc.
After all, those would be among consenting adults as well.
Sexual relations between close family members carries a high risk of producing genetically damaged offspring. Society certainly has a compelling interest in preventing such births. An incestuous couple could legally foreswear procreation, and reproduction is not something the law requires from marriage, but having a form of marriage in which reproduction was specifically forbidden would require a new and strange legal construct.
If two closely related adults decide to have a sexual relationship, however, and make sure they don't have children, I personally don't have a problem with that. I don't expect the legal system to go out of its way to accommodate such an unusual kind of relationship either.
Allowing gay marriages carries doesn't require much at all in terms of legal changes. For most marriage-related legal matters, a couple is a couple and gender doesn't really change much. All you'd be doing is permitting same-sex couples access to existing legal structures.
Some people are so scandalized or scared or affronted by gay marriage, however, that they're willing to go as far as amending constitutions to prevent it from happening -- they're willing to place a higher demand on society to block gay marriage than gays are asking for to have gay marriage accommodated.
The dynamics of polygamous relationships would introduce whole new legal issues regarding division of property, inheritance, parental authority and child custody, medical authority in case of emergency (Spouse A is in a coma. Spouse B says try the risky operation to save A. Spouse C says don't. Who wins?), etc. Polygamists would require access to new legal structures, not merely equal access to existing structures, which is all gays are asking for.
So, regarding that concept, should the argument be made (as we all know it will) would you agree with re-defining marriage to include other kinds of relationships, polygamy, between family members etc.
After all, those would be among consenting adults as well.
Sure. There isn't a reason for family members not to get married. Genetically, you're risking some weird ass looking kids by swimming in your own gene pool. But you shouldn't ban something because of genetic risk. Otherwise, all women would have to be sterilized once they hit the age when the risk of Down's baby increases. You'd also have to sterilize all people with any sort of genetic disorder lest they pass it on. But society doesn't do this.
As far polygamy goes, why not? What consenting adults do is really of no concern of mine. If someone wants three husbands (on is brother) and four wives (including his sister) so what? Does it at all impede my personal freedom?
I have nothing against loving anyone, if we keep love and sexual urges seperate. That is not the case. Read the earlier posts about being 'wired into being gay' and 'god made gay people'. Isn't that blame?
My definition of love is
# A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
Your defintion of love is
# A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
# 1. Sexual passion.
2. Sexual intercourse.
3. A love affair.
Both of our definitions are listed in the dictionary. You are entitled to your opinions, I am to mine. So let's not get down to personal arguments. Try and educate me into agreeing to your views because I am not 'wired' like you are. I did not grow up with gay friends, so I fail to see your viewpoint.
On a note: I have no problems with the mentioned court ruling or with gay marraiges as they really don't hurt anyone. I do think the whole concept is messed up though and that is the opinion which is shared here.
I actually think you make good points here with your two posts talksense101.
When I see people argue about sex of any stripe I sort of have to laugh as I have never had the priviledge to such an experience. I think society is so confused over sex that people on all sides make fools of themselves. There are the prudes on the one hand who say how dirty and sinful sex is. There are those who would have sex with any and all on the other hand. I am not saying either extreme is "wrong" but it is telling how misguided so many people are over it.
We need to treat others as people and learn to live and let live.
I'm curious. What is it about the word marriage that some oppose? I often hear people argue for a 'civil union' but think marriage would be wrong. What's the difference from that point of view? I'm genuinely curious and slightly confused by the subject.
Some societies don't care how many wives you have... it just so happens that this isn't one of them.
So you're saying it's alright for society to dictate how many people are in a marriage, but not dictate which genders. Your rules seem quite arbitrary to me.
They used to ban different races from marrying too.
Maybe mutliple wives were common and states saw the need to ban them for whatever reason. I dunno. Could be an interesting research topic. It's probably based on various religious sects... some ok with it some not...
So you're saying it's alright for society to dictate how many people are in a marriage, but not dictate which genders. Your rules seem quite arbitrary to me.
Look, polygamy is an interesting discussion but attacking gay marriage through an attack on polygamy just isn't the way to go about proving any point. It's just a way of dodging the issue at hand and you know it. Admit it.
I would also add that people need to live their lives based on what matters to them and what matters to others should really be immaterial. If people live as a gay couple so what? If it is the "children" that people are worried about teach your children what you wish to about what is important to you but in the end it is their life to live.
We need to learn to respect our differences and live a happy life not worrying about how others live their lives.
I wanna knowhow you sucker a woman in to marrying you AFTER you've told them you're already married.
I think polygamy is illegal because the real problem is men or women marrying someone without telling them they're already married.
That's nonsense. History and even the present, offer plenty of examples that people will willingly enter such arrangements.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I'm curious. What is it about the word marriage that some oppose? I often hear people argue for a 'civil union' but think marriage would be wrong. What's the difference from that point of view? I'm genuinely curious and slightly confused by the subject.
Marriage is a socio-religious institution, which is co-opted by the state in identifying various groups that qualify for assistance, tax breaks etc.
But its history as an enduring institution and its religious nature mean that people are relunctant to "re-define" something so close to their identity and upbringing simply to suit the social whims of the day.
I'm arguing that given its extensive history and place in our culture, shoehorning gay unions into something that was built to sustain and encourage heterosexual unions is misguided.
Come to think of it, society as a whole might be better off if the government referred to every union as a civil union and left marriage the exclusive domain of religious institutions.
Nevertheless many of Mormonism's policies subordinate women. Females are not given the priesthood, as are all "worthy males" over the age of twelve. Women therefore have never wielded much power within the church. Another now-defunct LDS policy that many see as discriminatory was polygamy. Research suggests that up to two-thirds of Mormon wives living in the Utah Territory before 1880 were in polygamous marriages. In 1894, after the U.S. Congress legislated against polygamy (thus barring Utah from statehood), prophet Wilford Woodruff announced a divine revelation that resulted in rescinding the practice.
Come to think of it, society as a whole might be better off if the government referred to every union as a civil union and left marriage the exclusive domain of religious institutions.
i'm not speaking on anyones behalf, but that would be FINE by me! As long as homosexual people have access to the same rights/privleges as their counterparts.
they would have to pass a federal law banning the states from using the term marriage...
doesn't that seem a little strange? and silly?
Some people can't deal with gay people getting married... so now the only people that are "married" will have to have done so in a church... I bet some would love that.
Look, polygamy is an interesting discussion but attacking gay marriage through an attack on polygamy just isn't the way to go about proving any point. It's just a way of dodging the issue at hand and you know it. Admit it.
I'm not dodging, just having a bit of fun with the hypocrisy of the idea.
Look BR, I know you're big on "get the gov't out of my face" and you've been consistent on that in threads whether the issue tilts right wing or left.
But many of the people who openly ridicule the idea of keeping the existing definition of marriage themselves do a double take when embracing polygamy is mentioned.
I find that hypocritical. If marriage can be re-defined for one group, then everybody gets to play. Otherwise, leave it as it is and create a new category for other types of relationships that don't have the history, not to mention the social standing of marriage.
Toying with the social underpinnings of our culture is not to be done lightly even in the best of times.
Come to think of it, society as a whole might be better off if the government referred to every union as a civil union and left marriage the exclusive domain of religious institutions.
Now I've suggested this before, but it's been met with some disdain. I don't want to cross the religious line in either direction. I don't want to dilute what a church does, but I don't think it's right (or constitutional) to limit gays in the way that we currently do.
Comments
Originally posted by chu_bakka
talkingnonsense.
who says it's blame... why should anyone have to justify loving someone of the same sex at all?
beastiality and pedophilia are completly undrelated issues.
But polygamy isn't. It's the next logical step. So why not say if you think you think it should be included in the definition of marriage as well?
Originally posted by Anders
]For clairification: I don´t belong in the "God" or "evolution" category. I belong to the combined society/social construction/whatever you want category
I'm with you on that one!
My definition of love is
# A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
Your defintion of love is
# A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
# 1. Sexual passion.
2. Sexual intercourse.
3. A love affair.
Both of our definitions are listed in the dictionary. You are entitled to your opinions, I am to mine. So let's not get down to personal arguments. Try and educate me into agreeing to your views because I am not 'wired' like you are. I did not grow up with gay friends, so I fail to see your viewpoint.
On a note: I have no problems with the mentioned court ruling or with gay marraiges as they really don't hurt anyone. I do think the whole concept is messed up though and that is the opinion which is shared here.
Originally posted by Frank777
So, regarding that concept, should the argument be made (as we all know it will) would you agree with re-defining marriage to include other kinds of relationships, polygamy, between family members etc.
After all, those would be among consenting adults as well.
Sexual relations between close family members carries a high risk of producing genetically damaged offspring. Society certainly has a compelling interest in preventing such births. An incestuous couple could legally foreswear procreation, and reproduction is not something the law requires from marriage, but having a form of marriage in which reproduction was specifically forbidden would require a new and strange legal construct.
If two closely related adults decide to have a sexual relationship, however, and make sure they don't have children, I personally don't have a problem with that. I don't expect the legal system to go out of its way to accommodate such an unusual kind of relationship either.
Allowing gay marriages carries doesn't require much at all in terms of legal changes. For most marriage-related legal matters, a couple is a couple and gender doesn't really change much. All you'd be doing is permitting same-sex couples access to existing legal structures.
Some people are so scandalized or scared or affronted by gay marriage, however, that they're willing to go as far as amending constitutions to prevent it from happening -- they're willing to place a higher demand on society to block gay marriage than gays are asking for to have gay marriage accommodated.
The dynamics of polygamous relationships would introduce whole new legal issues regarding division of property, inheritance, parental authority and child custody, medical authority in case of emergency (Spouse A is in a coma. Spouse B says try the risky operation to save A. Spouse C says don't. Who wins?), etc. Polygamists would require access to new legal structures, not merely equal access to existing structures, which is all gays are asking for.
Some societies don't care how many wives you have... it just so happens that this isn't one of them.
And are you really trying to define what my definiton of love is... for me?
Also... I'm sure there's plenty of people who marry for reasons other than love.
oh... are you SURE you didn't grow up knowing a gay person? how do you know?
Originally posted by Frank777
So, regarding that concept, should the argument be made (as we all know it will) would you agree with re-defining marriage to include other kinds of relationships, polygamy, between family members etc.
After all, those would be among consenting adults as well.
Sure. There isn't a reason for family members not to get married. Genetically, you're risking some weird ass looking kids by swimming in your own gene pool. But you shouldn't ban something because of genetic risk. Otherwise, all women would have to be sterilized once they hit the age when the risk of Down's baby increases. You'd also have to sterilize all people with any sort of genetic disorder lest they pass it on. But society doesn't do this.
As far polygamy goes, why not? What consenting adults do is really of no concern of mine. If someone wants three husbands (on is brother) and four wives (including his sister) so what? Does it at all impede my personal freedom?
Originally posted by talksense101
I have nothing against loving anyone, if we keep love and sexual urges seperate. That is not the case. Read the earlier posts about being 'wired into being gay' and 'god made gay people'. Isn't that blame?
My definition of love is
# A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
Your defintion of love is
# A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
# 1. Sexual passion.
2. Sexual intercourse.
3. A love affair.
Both of our definitions are listed in the dictionary. You are entitled to your opinions, I am to mine. So let's not get down to personal arguments. Try and educate me into agreeing to your views because I am not 'wired' like you are. I did not grow up with gay friends, so I fail to see your viewpoint.
On a note: I have no problems with the mentioned court ruling or with gay marraiges as they really don't hurt anyone. I do think the whole concept is messed up though and that is the opinion which is shared here.
I actually think you make good points here with your two posts talksense101.
When I see people argue about sex of any stripe I sort of have to laugh as I have never had the priviledge to such an experience. I think society is so confused over sex that people on all sides make fools of themselves. There are the prudes on the one hand who say how dirty and sinful sex is. There are those who would have sex with any and all on the other hand. I am not saying either extreme is "wrong" but it is telling how misguided so many people are over it.
We need to treat others as people and learn to live and let live.
Fellows
I think polygamy is illegal because the real problem is men or women marrying someone without telling them they're already married.
Unless you're from Utah. hehe
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Some societies don't care how many wives you have... it just so happens that this isn't one of them.
So you're saying it's alright for society to dictate how many people are in a marriage, but not dictate which genders. Your rules seem quite arbitrary to me.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I wanna knowhow you sucker a woman in to marrying you AFTER you've told them you're already married.
I think polygamy is illegal because the real problem is men or women marrying someone without telling them they're already married.
Unless you're from Utah. hehe
That isn't consent.
They used to ban different races from marrying too.
Maybe mutliple wives were common and states saw the need to ban them for whatever reason. I dunno. Could be an interesting research topic. It's probably based on various religious sects... some ok with it some not...
Originally posted by Frank777
So you're saying it's alright for society to dictate how many people are in a marriage, but not dictate which genders. Your rules seem quite arbitrary to me.
Look, polygamy is an interesting discussion but attacking gay marriage through an attack on polygamy just isn't the way to go about proving any point. It's just a way of dodging the issue at hand and you know it. Admit it.
We need to learn to respect our differences and live a happy life not worrying about how others live their lives.
Fellows
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I wanna knowhow you sucker a woman in to marrying you AFTER you've told them you're already married.
I think polygamy is illegal because the real problem is men or women marrying someone without telling them they're already married.
That's nonsense. History and even the present, offer plenty of examples that people will willingly enter such arrangements.
Originally posted by bunge
I'm curious. What is it about the word marriage that some oppose? I often hear people argue for a 'civil union' but think marriage would be wrong. What's the difference from that point of view? I'm genuinely curious and slightly confused by the subject.
Marriage is a socio-religious institution, which is co-opted by the state in identifying various groups that qualify for assistance, tax breaks etc.
But its history as an enduring institution and its religious nature mean that people are relunctant to "re-define" something so close to their identity and upbringing simply to suit the social whims of the day.
I'm arguing that given its extensive history and place in our culture, shoehorning gay unions into something that was built to sustain and encourage heterosexual unions is misguided.
Come to think of it, society as a whole might be better off if the government referred to every union as a civil union and left marriage the exclusive domain of religious institutions.
Nevertheless many of Mormonism's policies subordinate women. Females are not given the priesthood, as are all "worthy males" over the age of twelve. Women therefore have never wielded much power within the church. Another now-defunct LDS policy that many see as discriminatory was polygamy. Research suggests that up to two-thirds of Mormon wives living in the Utah Territory before 1880 were in polygamous marriages. In 1894, after the U.S. Congress legislated against polygamy (thus barring Utah from statehood), prophet Wilford Woodruff announced a divine revelation that resulted in rescinding the practice.
http://college.hmco.com/history/read...00_mormons.htm
Originally posted by Frank777
Come to think of it, society as a whole might be better off if the government referred to every union as a civil union and left marriage the exclusive domain of religious institutions.
i'm not speaking on anyones behalf, but that would be FINE by me! As long as homosexual people have access to the same rights/privleges as their counterparts.
doesn't that seem a little strange? and silly?
Some people can't deal with gay people getting married... so now the only people that are "married" will have to have done so in a church... I bet some would love that.
Originally posted by BR
Look, polygamy is an interesting discussion but attacking gay marriage through an attack on polygamy just isn't the way to go about proving any point. It's just a way of dodging the issue at hand and you know it. Admit it.
I'm not dodging, just having a bit of fun with the hypocrisy of the idea.
Look BR, I know you're big on "get the gov't out of my face" and you've been consistent on that in threads whether the issue tilts right wing or left.
But many of the people who openly ridicule the idea of keeping the existing definition of marriage themselves do a double take when embracing polygamy is mentioned.
I find that hypocritical. If marriage can be re-defined for one group, then everybody gets to play. Otherwise, leave it as it is and create a new category for other types of relationships that don't have the history, not to mention the social standing of marriage.
Toying with the social underpinnings of our culture is not to be done lightly even in the best of times.
Originally posted by Frank777
Come to think of it, society as a whole might be better off if the government referred to every union as a civil union and left marriage the exclusive domain of religious institutions.
Now I've suggested this before, but it's been met with some disdain. I don't want to cross the religious line in either direction. I don't want to dilute what a church does, but I don't think it's right (or constitutional) to limit gays in the way that we currently do.