Marriage Debate

Huntster said:
Interesting. You recognize that you cannot spell privilege, didn't bother to look the word up, yet can proclaim righteousness in a subject like marriage, and can proclaim that marriage isn't a "right", it's a "social privelege"?
Click to expand...

Marriage cannot exist without at least two people. Furthermore it cannot exist between two people unless both agree. That is the definition of a social privilege in my book. If it were a right, a single person would be able to get married to nobody on a desert island.

Huntster said:
You expect people to enter a special and holy vow like marriage based on your outlook?
Click to expand...

No I don't expect people to do so because people are, for the most part, moronic tools. To have my outlook would require honesty and introspection.

What are you trying to say? If you can and want to argue against my position, then argue against it. I don't understand why so many people on this forum resort to personal attacks and sarcasm...
 
rocketdodger said:
Marriage cannot exist without at least two people....
Click to expand...

That's what some want. Up to this point, it couldn't exist without one man and one woman, not "two people".

Later, it might be "one person and another 'entity'", like a lamb.

...Furthermore it cannot exist between two people unless both agree....
Click to expand...

Never been overseas?

...That is the definition of a social privilege in my book. If it were a right, a single person would be able to get married to nobody on a desert island....
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "social privilege".

...No I don't expect people to do so because people are, for the most part, moronic tools. To have my outlook would require honesty and introspection....
Click to expand...

It's a true honor, as a moronic tool, to interact with the one and only honest and introspective human on Earth.

...What are you trying to say?...
Click to expand...

You're an "introspective" idiot.

...If you can and want to argue against my position, then argue against it. I don't understand why so many people on this forum resort to personal attacks and sarcasm...
Click to expand...

Musta' been the environment............
 
Huntster said:
It's a true honor, as a moronic tool, to interact with the one and only honest and introspective human on Earth.

You're an "introspective" idiot.

Musta' been the environment............
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know what to make of you huntster. Sometimes you can really argue a point and sometimes... well, you act like this... At least nobody can call you predictable, I guess.
 
Even though you think I am an arrogant ass and I think you are an abrasive old man, can we still be friends?
 
Huntster said:
And what about religious institutions, where marriage originated?
Click to expand...
Any evidence of this? I'm sure in one of these debates someone once pointed to the evidence that showed that marriage as a religious institution (as opposed to a secular contractual matter) didn't come into being (in Europe) until the middle ages?

The progression seems to have been contractual > religious not religious > contractual.

(ETA)

Even the Pope seems to agree with me:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/l...uments/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html
...snip...


7. But the corruption and change which fell on marriage among the Gentiles seem almost incredible, inasmuch as it was exposed in every land to floods of error and of the most shameful lusts. All nations seem, more or less, to have forgotten the true notion and origin of marriage; and thus everywhere laws were enacted with reference to marriage, prompted to all appearance by State reasons, but not such as nature required. Solemn rites, invented at will of the law-givers, brought about that women should, as might be, bear either the honorable name of wife or the disgraceful name of concubine; and things came to such a pitch that permission to marry, or the refusal of the permission, depended on the will of the heads of the State, whose laws were greatly against equity or even to the highest degree unjust. Moreover, plurality of wives and husbands, as well as divorce, caused the nuptial bond to be relaxed exceedingly. Hence, too, sprang up the greatest confusion as to the mutual rights and duties of husbands and wives, inasmuch as a man assumed right of dominion over his wife, ordering her to go about her business, often without any just cause; while he was himself at liberty "to run headlong with impunity into lust, unbridled and unrestrained, in houses of ill-fame and amongst his female slaves, as if the dignity of the persons sinned with, and not the will of the sinner, made the guilt."(4) When the licentiousness of a husband thus showed itself, nothing could be more piteous than the wife, sunk so low as to be all but reckoned as a means for the gratification of passion, or for the production of offspring. Without any feeling of shame, marriageable girls were bought and sold, tike so much merchandise,(5) and power was sometimes given to the father and to the husband to inflict capital punishment on the wife. Of necessity, the offspring of such marriages as these were either reckoned among the stock in trade of the common-wealth or held to be the property of the father of the family;(6) and the law permitted him to make and unmake the marriages of his children at his mere will, and even to exercise against them the monstrous power of life and death.

...snip...
Click to expand...

As does the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm
 
Last edited:
Huntster said:
Were you married before 1989?

In accordance with both religious and secular vows, if so, you're still married.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily it depends on what religion he his. For example I believe it is only now the Roman Catholics that do not recognise divorce (unless of course the woman refuses to have sex with the man which is grounds for a dissolution - which granted isn't quite the same as a divorce).
 
Hardenbergh said:
When did I say that I hated homosexuals? Just because I want to leave marriage as it is, why is that hating homosexuals?
Click to expand...
Hate is too strong a word. You'll have to excuse thaiboxerken, he's strongwordophile. :)

You want to leave marriage as it is, and that doesn't mean you hate homosexuals. It just means you want to keep denying them (and not just them) equal rights under the law.

Antiquehunter said:
To those who suggest civil unions for same sex marriage, I propose that EVERYONE has only a civil union - and that ALL legal matters in day to day life are governed by 'Are you in a civil union with your spouse?'.
Click to expand...
There are two problem with that:
  1. People will continue to call it marriage as they have always done. A bit like the late Metric Martyr, some people will refuse to use the new term unless they are forced by law.
  2. The people who feel marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman will say: "See? I told you that's the Gay Agenda: to redefine marriage out of existence."
 
Earthborn said:
You want to leave marriage as it is, and that doesn't mean you hate homosexuals. It just means you want to keep denying them (and not just them) equal rights under the law.
Click to expand...

That's actually a very hard case to make. You can argue that it's unfair, you can argue that gays don't have EQUIVALENT rights under the law, but they do indeed have EQUAL rights under the law. Marriage laws state that marriage can only occur between one man and one woman. The law makes NO statement regarding the sexual orientation of either participant. Gays have just as much access to marriage as straight people do, and straight people are just as restricted as gays are from marrying people of the same sex. Your sexual orientation is irrelevant to the law, and therefore no unequal protection exists.

Is that unfair? Maybe. But the distinction between being unfair and lacking "equal protection" is not trivial, it matters quite a lot. "Equal protection" has a very precise constitutional meaning, and diluting its meaning, even for causes you believe in, is not a good idea. And I say that as someone who thinks we should have gay marriages. But it's simply not a constitutional right, and the harder it gets pushed as a constitutional right, the more likely it's going to get constitutionally denied. The only way to make it stick is if people accept it happening, and that means it's got to be enacted by legislative action, NOT by judicial decree.
 
rocketdodger said:
Even though you think I am an arrogant ass and I think you are an abrasive old man, can we still be friends?
Click to expand...

I don't think you're an arrogant ass, but I'm damned sure an abrasive old man.

You bet we can be friends, if you don't mind abrasive old fools.
 
Darat said:
....The progression seems to have been contractual > religious not religious > contractual....
Click to expand...

I read your links, but couldn't understand how they support your position.

Do you claim that marriage started as a state/government/tribal/legal function, and not spiritual/religious?
 
Huntster said:
Please inform me which American states "only allow marriage if procreation cannot take place".
Click to expand...

I can just cut and paste that one Darat :).

Illinois:
a marriage between first cousins is not prohibited if: both parties are 50 years of age or older; or (ii) either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, presents for filing with the county clerk of the county in which the marriage is to be solemnized, a certificate signed by a licensed physician stating that the party to the proposed marriage is permanently and irreversibly sterile;
Click to expand...

Indiana:
two (2) individuals may marry each other if the individuals are:
(1) first cousins; and
(2) both at least sixty-five (65) years of age.
Click to expand...

Arizona:
first cousins may marry if both are sixty-five years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce.
Click to expand...

Utah:
First cousins may marry under the following circumstances:
(a) both parties are 65 years of age or older; or
(b) if both parties are 55 years of age or older, upon a finding by the district court, located in the district in which either party resides, that either party is unable to reproduce.
Click to expand...

Wisconsin:
that marriage may be contracted between first cousins where the female has attained the age of 55 years or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit signed by a physician stating that either party is permanently sterile.
Click to expand...

Here we have the State making special accommodations for infertile people who want to marry their cousins (you think the gay population is small :)). Most notably, the State is giving these marriage rights only after they are sure the couple cannot produce children; they must be infertile.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's actually a very hard case to make. You can argue that it's unfair, you can argue that gays don't have EQUIVALENT rights under the law, but they do indeed have EQUAL rights under the law. Marriage laws state that marriage can only occur between one man and one woman. The law makes NO statement regarding the sexual orientation of either participant. Gays have just as much access to marriage as straight people do, and straight people are just as restricted as gays are from marrying people of the same sex. Your sexual orientation is irrelevant to the law, and therefore no unequal protection exists.
Click to expand...

You are right in large part. Gays are not given equal rights, but not because they are gay (in the area of marriage, military is another thing). It’s because of their anatomy (or, more specifically the letter M or F on their birth certificate). A lesbian wants the same rights as the man who could come into her home and get a bunch of rights with her spouse and kids simply because he has certain anatomy. Straight people are discriminated against in this same way; it’s just, with their nature, it doesn’t harm them directly or the families they inevitably make. So many don’t care.
 
Huntster said:
I read your links, but couldn't understand how they support your position.

Do you claim that marriage started as a state/government/tribal/legal function, and not spiritual/religious?
Click to expand...

Yes but I base my claim on the work of others such as historians, anthropologists and other authorities on Christian marriage (i.e the Pope).
 
Ziggurat said:
That's actually a very hard case to make. You can argue that it's unfair, you can argue that gays don't have EQUIVALENT rights under the law, but they do indeed have EQUAL rights under the law. Marriage laws state that marriage can only occur between one man and one woman. The law makes NO statement regarding the sexual orientation of either participant. Gays have just as much access to marriage as straight people do, and straight people are just as restricted as gays are from marrying people of the same sex. Your sexual orientation is irrelevant to the law, and therefore no unequal protection exists.
Click to expand...
That's all true, but only if you look at it from the perspective of individual rights. However, married couples are assumed to be a legal unit, and the rights and responsibilities they have because of their married status are only meaningful in the context of them being together. While you can argue that gay individuals are not discriminated against by marriage law on the grounds of sexual orientation -- but as Scot says, are discriminated on grounds of anatomy (or legal gender) -- but gay couples are discriminated against for their orientation. Since marriage is about couples and not about single individuals, that's what matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom