Marriage Debate

Meadmaker said:
ID's idea of marriage is apparently an economic arrangement, and any romance or sex involved is their problem. Therefore, there's no problem with a mother marrying a daughter.

You, apparently, want the government to facilitate something called "love". I don't know why you would want that, but that's fine, too. If that's what you want marriage to be, then write the rules appropriately. Two consenting adults, not close blood relatives. Presumably, no - fault divorce when the love is gone, right?
Click to expand...
I see you have no qualms about ignore my posts, and putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly mentioned spousal privilage as a benefit of marirage, which is legal, not economic. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal and financial institutuion. The states does not and should not require people to demonstrate affection and love for their bethrothed, as much as you or I might think love is a crucial part of a marriage.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
They are both social programs that the government can and will **** up.
Click to expand...

And if homosexuals want the government to screw up their relationships, who are you do say different?
Click to expand...

You asked a stupid question, and I gave you a stupid answer.

You want to go on with the game?
 
Meadmaker said:
ID's idea of marriage is apparently an economic arrangement, and any romance or sex involved is their problem. Therefore, there's no problem with a mother marrying a daughter.

You, apparently, want the government to facilitate something called "love". I don't know why you would want that, but that's fine, too. If that's what you want marriage to be, then write the rules appropriately. Two consenting adults, not close blood relatives. Presumably, no - fault divorce when the love is gone, right?
Click to expand...

Oh, come on, Meadmaker. Read the ENTIRE post. The part which says

.. snip
But if someone else's idea of marriage is successively younger trophy partners, that's up to them.
Click to expand...

I don't care why someone else wants to get married. If both partners are of age of consent and competent to consent, they can be non-fornicating hermaphrodites who only want clear ownership of their beach house.

Personally, I'm happy in a marriage for love. Since I come from a culture which still expects every man and woman to marry, and those marriages are frequently based on a day's knowledge of each other, my idea is wild and crazy in perspective.
 
bluess said:
I don't care why someone else wants to get married. If both partners are of age of consent and competent to consent, they can be non-fornicating hermaphrodites who only want clear ownership of their beach house.
Click to expand...

Ok, fine. Then surely a (non-fornicating) mother and daughter might want clear ownership of the beach house, so no problem getting married. And while I share your concern about coercion, surely you aren't going to say that my 53 year old friend is being coerced by her 80 year old mother. Not your cup of tea, but you ought to be ok with that. Or, did I miss something?

As far as the state is concerned, we're back to economics. No love interest at all. Right?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I see you have no qualms about ignore my posts, and putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly mentioned spousal privilage as a benefit of marirage, which is legal, not economic.
Click to expand...

"Spousal privilege". We're talking sex, right? How does that apply to mom and daughter. I'll google the term to make sure I understand what it means.

It may seem nitpicky, but what is this thing called marriage that you want everyone to share in? I have this idea of what it is from being taught about it growing up, but that's tradition, and you don't like that. Besides, if you go with what I was brought up with, you end up with one man and one woman having sex.
 
Meadmaker said:
Ok, fine. Then surely a (non-fornicating) mother and daughter might want clear ownership of the beach house, so no problem getting married. And while I share your concern about coercion, surely you aren't going to say that my 53 year old friend is being coerced by her 80 year old mother. Not your cup of tea, but you ought to be ok with that. Or, did I miss something?

As far as the state is concerned, we're back to economics. No love interest at all. Right?
Click to expand...

As I said, I am uncomfortable with the parent-child marriage due to my own perceptions regarding free consent. Yes, that's my hang-up. I've seen 80-year old moms tie their grown children into emotional knots. Barring my emotional response to the parent-child thing, again, two people of age who freely consent and are capable of consent....yep.

The state is not interested in love.
 
ETA: Looked it up. Spousal privilege. No sex involved with that. Ok. Fine. Two consenting adults can pick each other to avoid testimony against each other. Mom and daughter can be shielded from testimony against each other. I have no problem with that.

(I'm picturing Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling rushing to the Justice of the Peace, but it probably would not have worked.)
 
Meadmaker said:
ETA: Looked it up. Spousal privilege. No sex involved with that. Ok. Fine. Two consenting adults can pick each other to avoid testimony against each other. Mom and daughter can be shielded from testimony against each other. I have no problem with that.

(I'm picturing Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling rushing to the Justice of the Peace, but it probably would not have worked.)
Click to expand...

:D That made me laugh. Thanks!
 
People seem to be straying away from the "same sex" bit of the debate.

As far as I know this thread was meant to be about why two people of the same sex should be denied the ability to marry, not whether I can marry my mother, my cat or my car. Perhaps if you want to argue for marriage to be accessible or not to those relationships another thread?
 
Darat said:
People seem to be straying away from the "same sex" bit of the debate.

As far as I know this thread was meant to be about why two people of the same sex should be denied the ability to marry, not whether I can marry my mother, my cat or my car. Perhaps if you want to argue for marriage to be accessible or not to those relationships another thread?
Click to expand...

I think the anti's are trying to bolster their position by saying that defining marriage as relationship between any two people allows you to marry your mother. I've gone the distance and (maybe I should set this to music) acknowledge my personal concern about such a relationship but think that wide open marriage laws should allow this.

HOWEVER, current marriage laws against incest are not being set aside. Most states have them. If you can't marry your sibling, you still won't be able to marry your sibling if SSMs are allowed. I see nowhere in these arguments where pro-SSMs have advocated wholesale change of all family law. I can't see where allowing marriage between single-sex couples 'undoes' those laws.

It does not seem to me that the broader question of what a marriage is, outside of the genders involved, is easily answered. The answers differ from culture to culture, and from couple to couple. If a man and a woman can be in a marriage of convenience (as most were earlier on), why not a man/man, woman/woman, XXY/XX, XXY/XY?


(derail) We haven't yet discussed the forbidden joys of automotive love, but I'm sure we'll get there...(/derail)
 
Darat said:
People seem to be straying away from the "same sex" bit of the debate.

As far as I know this thread was meant to be about why two people of the same sex should be denied the ability to marry, not whether I can marry my mother, my cat or my car. Perhaps if you want to argue for marriage to be accessible or not to those relationships another thread?
Click to expand...

Sorry, Darat, but I think it's very topical. When Zig, Scot, or I, talk about marriage as being meant for the raising of children, people insist it's irrelevant because infertile couples can marry. (Oh wait, no one says that to Scot. Weird, that.) That isn't a question of same sex, either, but it seems relevant. It seems to me extremely topical to ask who can be excluded from marriage, if anyone. Similarly, it seems extremely topical to ask what marriage is and what it's for, and use that as a means of exploring whether anyone, such as gays or relatives can be excluded.

Bluess and ID have said, appearing somewhat reluctant, that no one may be excluded. Very well. That's a fine definition of marriage. It works. Does anyone object to it? After all, I don't think it would cause a rush of people to marry their mothers.

(And to reiterate, no where will you find anyplace posted in the last year where I've advocated for continuing the ban on same sex marriage. ID doesn't seem to grasp that one can respect an argument, or find it valid, if one doesn't agree with it.)
 
Meadmaker said:
Bluess and ID have said, appearing somewhat reluctant, that no one may be excluded. Very well. That's a fine definition of marriage. It works. Does anyone object to it? After all, I don't think it would cause a rush of people to marry their mothers.
Click to expand...

Reluctant? Hardly. I just didn't jump up and down with my opinion, until you managed to coalesce some cogent argument against same sex marriage, which is impossible.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Reluctant? Hardly. I just didn't jump up and down with my opinion, until you managed to coalesce some cogent argument against same sex marriage, which is impossible.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's what happened to me on this forum. I argued and argued and argued until I realized that none of my arguments held water. Intellectually I had to accept that my position was irrational. I actively campaigned for the "defense of marriage act" in California but not I'm campaigning against the current legislature.
 
Meadmaker said:
Sorry, Darat, but I think it's very topical. When Zig, Scot, or I, talk about marriage as being meant for the raising of children, people insist it's irrelevant because infertile couples can marry. (Oh wait, no one says that to Scot. Weird, that.) That isn't a question of same sex, either, but it seems relevant.
Click to expand...

You've stated, as well, that you don't think that it's quite alright for infertile couples to get married. That would include same-sex couples, right?
 
Zig,
You see why it's hopeless? (Now the real question is why this topic sucks me in. Only a shrink could answer that one.)
 
RandFan said:
Yep, that's what happened to me on this forum. I argued and argued and argued until I realized that none of my arguments held water. Intellectually I had to accept that my position was irrational. I actively campaigned for the "defense of marriage act" in California but not I'm campaigning against the current legislature.
Click to expand...
Very similar to how I dropped Christianity/all religion.
 
Meadmaker said:
Zig,
You see why it's hopeless? (Now the real question is why this topic sucks me in. Only a shrink could answer that one.)
Click to expand...

Yes, because your position seems to change position more than a bucktooth blonde in an orgy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom