Marriage Debate

I guess, according to Huntster, homosexuality is only a sexual deviation and nothing more. Bigots tend to think like that.
 
bluess said:
What do you define as 'marriage as we know it'?
Click to expand...

Marriage:


The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
Click to expand...
 
That's marriage as dictionary.reference.com knows it. But not all of "we" are dictionary.reference.com, and some of "we" have different views of what marriage is.

[edited to correct mistyped domain name]
 
Meffy said:
That's marriage as dictionary.reference.com knows it. But not all of "we" are dictionary.reference.com, and some of "we" have different views of what marriage is.
Click to expand...

But when writing laws, it would be nice if we picked one. As for me, I'm uncomfortable with any definition that included a mom and her daughter, or two business partners who weren't having sex. I think aaron's approach would be better than that.
 
Meadmaker said:
But when writing laws, it would be nice if we picked one. As for me, I'm uncomfortable with any definition that included a mom and her daughter,
Click to expand...

What is it about the current laws that exclude a mom and her son? Why would it have to be any different for same sex marriage?
 
I doubt that one definition that's politically supportable can fail to discriminate against someone. As for allowing a pair of business partners who aren't having sex to marry... why not? It's certainly happened before, business partners or not.
 
Meadmaker said:
But when writing laws, it would be nice if we picked one. As for me, I'm uncomfortable with any definition that included a mom and her daughter, or two business partners who weren't having sex. I think aaron's approach would be better than that.
Click to expand...
Wait a second, premarital sex is now a requirement for marriage?
 
"Hey, you two business partners -- are you having premarital sex?"

[in unison] "None of your business."
 
Meadmaker

As for me, I'm uncomfortable with …[cut]… two business partners [getting married] who weren't having sex.
Click to expand...

Heck, that’s the traditional marriage for gay folks. You are against traditional marriage :).
 
pgwenthold said:
What is it about the current laws that exclude a mom and her son? Why would it have to be any different for same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't, but a couple of people here have said they would be ok if a mom and son got married. (THe specific example was a mom and daughter. I'm inferring that a mom and son would also not offend them.) I'm saying that I disagree with that definition.
 
Meadmaker said:
I should have said two business partners who did not intend to have sex.
Click to expand...


First, current laws already allow this, but only if those business partners (only 2) are one of each sex.

Second, what's wrong with it? Why should sex be a requirement of marriage? If they are both ok fine with it, why should the state (or the church, even) care?

Third, given that heterosexual couples are allowed to do it, why shouldn't homosexuals?
 
Hey, give 'em a Home Depot gift card. You can get a lot more action with a wheelbarrow, a supply of grass seed and a ....

never mind:o
 
ImaginalDisc said:
That's not a good comparison, since drinking and foul language don't control the sexuality of others with legaly enforced restrictions.

Frankly, if you mistrust your partner so much that you try to use a legally binding contract to control their gentials, you have major problems.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I agree with your frankness... however, I don't think we should restrict OTHERS from contractually obligating themselves to fidelity. Do you have criteria you use to seperate out what you think should be allowed and what should not be allowed to go into a contract?

As a libertarian, here's my take. A contract is an agreement between multiple people who voluntarily comit themselves legally to some promises in exchange for legal commitments from the others who partook. If any person felt that their commitments would cost them more than they gained from it, they WOULDN'T SIGN. Therefore everyone in the contract benifits from the existance of the contract. Therefore government should not restrict such contracts as everyone involved benifits and no one is harmed.

You are suggesting that some contracts not be permitted. That is to the detriment of any who would like to sign such contracts and benifits no one. So why do you want to restrict these contracts?

Aaron
 
HeavyAaron said:
You are suggesting that some contracts not be permitted. That is to the detriment of any who would like to sign such contracts and benifits no one. So why do you want to restrict these contracts?

Aaron
Click to expand...

Technically, unless something is illegal, the government has no right to step in and restrict contracts and their obligations if both parties agree to the terms. Hence, the making SSM illegal is a high priority for opponents to it.
 
wastepanel said:
Technically, unless something is illegal, the government has no right to step in and restrict contracts and their obligations if both parties agree to the terms. Hence, the making SSM illegal is a high priority for opponents to it.
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble parsing your last sentence, but I think I get the jist.

But I'd like to point out that under the current set of laws a (legal) marriage is more than a simple contract because the government recognition entails extra-contractual legal implications. I'd like to do away with those, but at the present time they exist. Therefore, it is possible for a person to hold that contracts should be wide open and yet still oppose SSM and be consistant (as marriage, SSM or otherwise, entails more than other contracts.)

Aaron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom