Polyamory and Marriage

[soulcougher73]

Mud bigot. Mud is made up of, clear water and dirt. Who are you to call mud mud when someone who likes the image of clear water prefers to call mud clear water? If you get 10's of millions whining about changing the meaning of the words 'clear water' to also include what we refer to as mud, who are you to say that a society that wants to refer to mud now as 'clear water' is wrong? They have chosen to redefine what was always understood to be as 'clear water' to now include what has always been understood to be mud. You're simply a bigot.

What you want only works if you make the large assumption that a man and a man being joined together is equal to a man and woman being joined together. What you're saying is it doesn't matter that a man is not a woman and vice versa, you just want it to be so because you want to be nice and include the two gay guys in the societal understanding and ceremony of marriage. What you want is the same as referring to mud as clear water, simply because you want it to be so.

Chuck

Wow, really? Sorry, i dont even know how to debate this. If you cannot grasp the basic concept that marriage is a "societal" concept and can be changed as society changes..well...Good luck in life. Not much to debate.

 

[chucky2]

Wow, really? Sorry, i dont even know how to debate this. If you cannot grasp the basic concept that marriage is a "societal" concept and can be changed as society changes..well...Good luck in life. Not much to debate.

Definitions/meanings of words are determined by societies. Don't be a mud bigot.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No, all that matters here is accuracy. Bigots from before not allowing a black man to marry a white woman because of ethnicity were wrong to exclude that marriage because as has been proven, there is no difference between a black man marrying a white woman than a white man marrying a white woman, other than color.

There is no difference between a man marrying a man than a man marrying a woman, other than gender.

And that neatly dismantles all your arguments.

 

[chucky2]

snip

There once was a time in our culture where people of other races and religions were not married. That has changed. Same sex unions are happening and will probably be legal nationally within our lifetimes. Polygamy? Well this thread will hopefully shed some light on the issue.

And that is fine, as is polygamy. What's not OK is perverting the term marriage because people whine long and loud enough to be included under it. We have a society that keeps and getting more and more puss on things like that. Be offended, whine, keep whining, get others to whine with you, get your way. Awesome...

 

[SMOGZINN]

It's interesting really since if you start the argument with the condition that marriage can only be between a man and a woman then of course you'll get to the end result you want.

I don't accept that premises, and they have no arguments to support it that does not assume it. It is a circular argument.

 

[chucky2]

There is no difference between a man marrying a man than a man marrying a woman, other than gender.

And that neatly dismantles all your arguments.

"Other than". And that fully makes my argument, not dismantles it, no matter how much you want it to be so.

 

[SMOGZINN]

And that is fine, as is polygamy. What's not OK is perverting the term marriage because people whine long and loud enough to be included under it. We have a society that keeps and getting more and more puss on things like that. Be offended, whine, keep whining, get others to whine with you, get your way. Awesome...

If you don't want the term marriage applied, then you need to ban it from government altogether. We can all have civil unions, and that will be equal.

 

[SMOGZINN]

"Other than". And that fully makes my argument, not dismantles it, no matter how much you want it to be so.

I actually copied your argument and just replaced the words "Black Man" and "White Woman". The rest is your argument verbatim.

 

[chucky2]

If you don't want the term marriage applied, then you need to ban it from government altogether. We can all have civil unions, and that will be equal.

Finally, we agree. :thumbsup:

 

[chucky2]

I actually copied your argument and just replaced the words "Black Man" and "White Woman". The rest is your argument verbatim.

Still playing the ethnicity card, even though it's completely different as the black man is a man and the white woman is a woman.

 

[randomrogue]

"Other than". And that fully makes my argument, not dismantles it, no matter how much you want it to be so.

No. He's right. That's the difference. That's why it's a violation of a person's civil rights. If you discriminate based on a person's religion, race, gender, etc

To you it's changing the definition of a word. To everyone else it's discriminating against a group of people based on gender and sexual preference.

Cultures change. I imagine that marriage 20,000 years ago was very different than what it was 10,000 years ago just like it was different 100 years ago. Adapt, migrate, or die.

 

[nehalem256]

The goal is for two people to build a life together. It doesn't always work out, but that doesn't change the intention. Over half of small businesses go bankrupt, but that doesn't mean they didn't try to make money.

The divorce rate is just another one of your tired red herrings.

I said marriage was about procreation. You suggested that because some married heterosexual couples do not reproduce that clearly this was untrue.

You said marriage was "about creating a stable family structure". I then suggested that because 50% of married couples divorce this is clearly not true.

I am applying the exact same logic you are. The real red herring is the idea that because some heterosexual couples do not reproduce that marriage is not about procreation. In fact that is EXACTLY the argument made by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the 1970s.

With respect to the claim of an equal-protection violation, the Court found that childless marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection in the state's rationale for limiting marriage to different-sex couples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they parachute down from the moon. They are around, and people don't want them. They live mostly miserable lives and cost taxpayers money to take care of them. And if there were enough hetero couples willing to adopt them, then by definition we wouldn't have a problem of unadopted kids in the first place.

Having them be adopted is a win-win all around for society.

People don't want to take on 12 year olds from broken homes with behavior problems. People go overseas to adopt babies. Do you recall Russia banning US couples adopting children recently? I don't think American's were going to Russia to adopt kids because there was a plethora of kids they wanted available in the US.

I don't think gay couples are going to want the older problem kids anymore than straight couples.

If you don't want to have a bunch of older kids from broken homes needing adopting the best way to go about is to support the idea of traditional marriage.

Sperm donors were never "defined" as being part of a marriage for heterosexual couples, so why would they be considered part of a marriage for gay couples either? The entire point is that marriage and reproduction are not strictly linked.

Even posing that question is utterly ludicrous. I've warned you in the past that deliberately obtuse comments will not be tolerated here. The point of the DC is reasonable discussion, not using any tactic possible to try to "win" an argument. If you want to engage in your usual trolling behavior, do it in P&N.

You were the one claiming that a lesbian couple has higher chance of procreating than a heterosexual couple. That is a utterly ludicrous claim to make. It is in complete contradiction of biology.

 

[nehalem256]

It's interesting really since if you start the argument with the condition that marriage can only be between a man and a woman then of course you'll get to the end result you want.

That's not what this is about though. No matter how much you try to define it as such.

Marriage is a contract. It gives rights to property in life and after death. It's a union between people. Between parents and their children. Between families. The sexes have nothing to do with it.

You can try to define it as such but you are simply trying to deny one group their civil rights much like others have done before you.

Culturally speaking we can choose to define marriage as between a man and a woman. I will grant you that. However we can also choose to define it in a more fair and tolerant manner. You have to understand that this is left to the culture. Some allow polygamy, some allow arranged marriage, some allow children to get married, etc.

We appear to have a contradiction here. Considering that children cannot enter into contracts.

Marriage and contracts are both social constructs and may have similar features, but marriage is not just a contract. If it were gay couples would have been perfectly happy just having civil unions.

 

[soulcougher73]

We appear to have a contradiction here. Considering that children cannot enter into contracts.

Marriage and contracts are both social constructs and may have similar features, but marriage is not just a contract. If it were gay couples would have been perfectly happy just having civil unions.

2 Issues. First he was talking about different cultures with regards to children marrying. We dont practice that in the US so of course a child cannot enter a marriage contract. No contradiction found.

Secondly. You are right gays would be happy with civil unions being represented equally as marriages by the government for the whole US. The problem is you cant seem to understand people are going to use both those terms when talking about this issue. Civil Unions/marriage..it doesnt matter. They just want them to be equal.

I have a feeling you'd throw a bigger hissy fit if the government moved to change all marraiges to civil unions thus abonding the word 'marriage' all together.

Pick your fights wisely as its a lose lose situation on your side

 

[SMOGZINN]

Finally, we agree. :thumbsup:

Yes. I (and I would presume most other SSM and Poly supporters) don't really care if you call it Civil Union, Marriage, or Hand Fasting as long as it is called that for everyone. That is equality, and that is all we want.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I am applying the exact same logic you are.

No, you are not. The difference has to do with intention.

All couples go into a marriage with the intention of formally creating a life together. Some couples go into marriage with the intention of procreating. And some couples decide to procreate without getting married.

As I said, the fact that some marriages fail no more undercuts their intention than the fact that some businesses fail.

The real red herring is the idea that because some heterosexual couples do not reproduce that marriage is not about procreation.

Um, if you say that two activities are intricately linked, then my pointing out their degree of orthogonality is not a red herring, it goes to the heart of the issue. Marriage and procreation are, for all intents and purposes, independent activities.

I don't think gay couples are going to want the older problem kids anymore than straight couples.

And what basis do you have for this presumption? Given your prejudices, I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

If you don't want to have a bunch of older kids from broken homes needing adopting the best way to go about is to support the idea of traditional marriage.

Why, because you said so? That's not an argument, it's just a blank declaration.

You were the one claiming that a lesbian couple has higher chance of procreating than a heterosexual couple. That is a utterly ludicrous claim to make. It is in complete contradiction of biology.

Oh, but it's not ludicrous at all. You're trying to make it ludicrous by deliberately ignoring the context of modern society, which is disingenuous to say the least.

Looking at the matter in aggregate would force you to come to terms with the fact that your "marriage = reproduction" argument falls flat on its face when it comes to lesbians. And because it also makes clear that the biological importance of the male in human reproduction is negligible, something that I'm sure bothers you a great deal.

Two wombs are better than one when it comes to reproduction, and it's just as simple as that. The male component is easily replaced; the female, not so much.

In fact, if the real goal is reproduction, we'd all be better off with large group marriages -- the more, the merrier. So you're really making an argument in favor of polyamory.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

We appear to have a contradiction here. Considering that children cannot enter into contracts.

Which is why their parents enter into such contracts on their behalf, just as they do for a whole host of other things. Which I'm sure you knew already.

 

[woolfe9998]

And that is fine, as is polygamy. What's not OK is perverting the term marriage because people whine long and loud enough to be included under it. We have a society that keeps and getting more and more puss on things like that. Be offended, whine, keep whining, get others to whine with you, get your way. Awesome...

I've read all your posts here. Is this all you got? You're concerned about the definition of a word changing over time from what was traditional, and using the pejorative "perversion" to describe any deviation from traditional norms? Your logic extends to protecting anything considered traditional, regardless of its merit.

Do you have another reason for opposing gay marriage besides blind adherence to tradition?

 

[chucky2]

No. He's right. That's the difference. That's why it's a violation of a person's civil rights. If you discriminate based on a person's religion, race, gender, etc

To you it's changing the definition of a word. To everyone else it's discriminating against a group of people based on gender and sexual preference.

Cultures change. I imagine that marriage 20,000 years ago was very different than what it was 10,000 years ago just like it was different 100 years ago. Adapt, migrate, or die.

Right: Difference. It's not the definition of the word, it's the meaning and context of the word. None of that needs to be perverted to include gay unions in society.

We simply need to have all levels of Gov only recognize legal unions between adults. Done. You're a hetero couple who got married at St. Catholic Brainwashing Church and School? Outstanding for you. Where is your Gov issued civil union certificate? You don't have one? You are not legally joined in the eyes of the Gov, have a nice day.

Done. Issue over. No perversion of the word, definition, context, etc. of marriage needed. Next.

 

[chucky2]

Yes. I (and I would presume most other SSM and Poly supporters) don't really care if you call it Civil Union, Marriage, or Hand Fasting as long as it is called that for everyone. That is equality, and that is all we want.

No, we wouldn't be doing that. I would refer to a hetero married couple as married. I would refer to say a gay couple as joined or unioned. The only equal to a hetero marriage is a hetero marriage. This isn't about equality in terms, it's about equality of rights. Gays could have legal unions with full rights probably a decade or more ago, but they keep keeping on with this rediculous notion that they are equal to a hetero couple and thus can also be "married'. They are not equal, are not seen as equal (except by gays and those they've successfully perverted on the issue), and will not be seen as equal, and thus the pushback.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

I've read all your posts here. Is this all you got? You're concerned about the definition of a word changing over time from what was traditional, and using the pejorative "perversion" to describe any deviation from traditional norms? Your logic extends to protecting anything considered traditional, regardless of its merit.

Do you have another reason for opposing gay marriage besides blind adherence to tradition?

It's not that 'that's all I've got' but more rather that's all you've got. Your sides argument thus far is We want it to, whine whine whine! I've seen nothing so far that indicates why gays/polyamory unions cannot be full rights legal unions with the Gov only recognizing such for any joined couple/multiple person partnership. We just don't willy nilly change the meaning and context of thousands of years/multiple societies understanding of words because one small group and their perverted supporters have a modern mass media to whine loud and wide enough to get their PC hooks into said word because 'they wanna too'.

Do you have another reason for including gay "marriage" besides blind adhereence to "us too because we wanna"? I'm not seeing it...

 

[randomrogue]

Words change all the time. Deal with it. You're being insanely attached to a word when I bet you use words all the time that used to mean something else.

Take "gay" for example. The word "guy" and "awful" used to mean something completely different.

Seriously get off the "perverted" horse of yours.

 

[chucky2]

Words change all the time. Deal with it. You're being insanely attached to a word when I bet you use words all the time that used to mean something else.

Take "gay" for example. The word "guy" and "awful" used to mean something completely different.

Seriously get off the "perverted" horse of yours.

No, you get off needing to change the meaning of the word around needlessly. I ask again, why does the meaning and context of the word need to change? It has already been established that gay/polyamory couples are not equal to hetero couples. So why other than feel good PC BS are we changing the word again? Oh, that's right, we don't have a reason beyond that...

Can I offer you an orange from an orange bush? (you might formerly know it as an apple from an apple tree, but hey, we can change word meanings no problem, they're equal, right?)

 

[randomrogue]

They are equal.

 

[Pulsar]

snip
Chuck

I'll put this simply.

A little while back, blacks were not considered people. So we changed the definition.

If your argument is that the definition of marriage is being changed, then you're right.

What happens when a scientist figures out a theory is wrong? It gets modified.

What happens when we realize we've been wrongly defining something? It gets modified.

Arguing that marriage is what marriage is and should not be changed is a horrible argument. "We've always done it this way, sooo....."

In fact, as someone else pointed out to me, marriage was not a Christian institution - it was around long before Christianity. Yet Christiantity co-opted it and changed what it meant.

Not much different that what's going on now, huh?