Polyamory and Marriage

[nehalem256]

Your semantics argument holds no water. We gladly change the meaning of words all the time. Marriage use to mean one and as many women as he could afford, we then changed it to one man and the woman he was able to buy from her dad, we then changed it to mean one man and one woman of the same race, we no longer liked those definitions so we changed it.

Change in definition not found. Some of the things you are mentioning are about the proper way of find a marital partner. Do we need to change the definition of marriage to account for finding a partner online too?

Also I am confused about why we are even saying that buying a woman from her dad would constitute marriage. After all I thought the argument was previously made that marriage was inherently a contract and requires the consent of everyone being married?

As for inter-racial marriage... find me one shred of historical evidence of someone saying that a black person and a white person cannot be married?

They thought it was wrong for people of different races to get married. But they didnt think it was against the definition.

For a more modern example see child marriage. Pretty much everyone in the first world would agree this is wrong. But I have never heard anyone say that it isn't marriage.

 

[randomrogue]

Interracial marriage was ILLEGAL in our colonies, states, and territories until the 1967 supreme court ruling.

 

[Craig234]

Interracial marriage was ILLEGAL in our colonies, states, and territories until the 1967 supreme court ruling.

Actually, it was only illegal in the 16 states who still had those laws.

I've said the Supreme Court had radical conservatives on it in the 1880's - another case supporting that is that this law was ruled on by them in a case challenging it as unconstitutional under the recent 14th amendment, and they ruled it was constitutional.

That's the same court that gave us the precedent of corporations having rights as people under the 14th amendment - sort of (long story).

(In fact, many more 14th amendment cases were heard about corporations and the 14th amendment than blacks, who it was for).

The repeal of the laws started largely after WWII.

Funny coincidence: the first law was passed by Virginia, in 1691.

 

[Vaux]

Craig loves to preach the "discrimination without justification" - and then ignores the justification.

Couples of the same sex were not meant to come together as one. Doesn't matter if you are born gay or not. The human species was not designed to operate in that manner. Why does everyone just ignore that?

 

[Retro Rob]

Well, I saw you had said 'smoking is a better analogy'.

No, it's not.

People aren't 'born smokers'.

...and people aren't born having sex. What I said is this: I look at premarital sex the same as same-sex, sex. The two are the same to me, for example, not acceptable by Christian standards.

Does it matter how I view it? No, it doesn't. Just giving you an example of what I mean. I didn't say being "gay" was a behavior, either.

There are two issues with homosexuality. First is people being naturally homosexual. The second are behaviors - gay kissing, gay sex, gay marriage.

Ah, exactly what I mean, really.

So the first is, do you have any justification for 'moral opposition' to someone 'being gay'?

Moral opposition, IMO, is very subjective -- each person holds his own set of morals. What may be justification for me may not be for you.

I am not opposed, in any way, to people being born gay -- they're born gay. How can I oppose that? I'd be opposing people.

So then you have the question, given someone is effectively 'born gay', and has the same desires as anyone else for love and sex except from the same gender, do you have any justification to tell them 'WE can have partners and relationships and the respect of society for our marriages, but YOU are immoral for having yours with the gender you are naturally attracted to have them with, so I'm against yours having equality'.

LOL -- I don't have the justification to tell them they can't have partners... I don't whatsoever, but please Craig, since you're so bent on misrepresenting me, I would love for you to find a post where I am for restricting marriage to hetero couples legally. Or find where I am for the second batch of lies you wrote.

No, there isn't justification for that, but you seem to support it.

Again, find the evidence for this.

Another analogy would be pedophila, if people were 'born pedophiles' (I'm not sure where the orientation comes from, and it seems to be more environmental since so many victims of child abuse go on to become abusers, which is not a condition they were 'born with'). In that case, no, it's not an 'immoral condition' - they didn't choose it, it's not a moral issue

Great, but nothing to do with my post.

The same is not true for gays. It is discrimination without justification - just as telling smokers they're not allowed to marry would be.

Where did I say smokers aren't allowed to marry?

And in fact there'd be a better argument for the smokers, if you consider protecting the spouses from second hand smoke. But it's not enough to justify that discrimination.

Where does this come from... discriminating against smokers?

I know you hate this Craig, and I know this disrupts the utopia you're dreaming about, but last I checked, people have the God-given right to accept and reject what they want, justified or not, race related or not, with or without reason. We don't have to justify anything to you or to anyone else. What's justified to me can rightly be rejected by you. So what?

You act as if you're prepared to do something to those who disagree with gay marriage. What? Are you going to make it illegal to disagree with it? Do you want to?

You seem to think that using the phrase 'personal issue' gives you some untainted, unbigoted reason for denying rights to others. But you haven't justified that.

Personal issue, for me, means its personal and kept personal and not acted upon. Is it ok to have personal objections to gay marriage in today's world?

You have played the victim that anytime anyone suggests there is bigotry motivating your support for denying rights to gays you are wrongy insulted - but not shown anything that doesn't support that it's true that bigotry seems the only explanation behind your insistence on the negative views towards gays.

Now I really want you to find where I am for denying gays rights. These are serious accusations, and since you think they're true, where's your evidence?

Find a post...something. Don't tell me what you think -- tell me what you know since you're so sure. I prefer a post. I will give you all day.

 

[Vaux]

"right to accept and reject what they want, justified or not, race related or not, with or without reason. We don't have to justify anything to you or to anyone else. What's justified to me can rightly be rejected by you. So what?" ------

That's a strong statement. I left out the "god given" part because IMO god has nothing to do with it. But honestly, whether if it's Rob or Craig or anyone, I do like to see people standing up for what they believe in.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Craig loves to preach the "discrimination without justification" - and then ignores the justification.

Couples of the same sex were not meant to come together as one. Doesn't matter if you are born gay or not. The human species was not designed to operate in that manner. Why does everyone just ignore that?

Humans weren't designed to make metals....cars....houses....etc, but we evolved to be that way.

I'm pretty sure same sex was happening back in the caveman era as well.

Also we were not designed, we simply evolve from other species into what we are today.

There was no magic.....god that created everything you see.

 

[Vaux]

Humans weren't designed to make metals....cars....houses....etc, but we evolved to be that way.

I'm pretty sure same sex was happening back in the caveman era as well.

Also we were not designed, we simply evolve from other species into what we are today.

There was no magic.....god that created everything you see.

That is not the same thing. Making metals and cars and such would not cause the species to die out. That is the problem. It is inherently wrong.

Same sex may have been happening with cavemen, yes. And it was still wrong then too. That is not how it's supposed to be done.

To say designed, I didn't mean to imply there was a designer. I am not religious. What I meant was we evolved to this state and this is how we are supposed to be. If gay was how we are supposed to be, then we would all be dead. So, yeah, problem there.

 

[Vdubchaos]

That is not the same thing. Making metals and cars and such would not cause the species to die out. That is the problem. It is inherently wrong.

And gay people won't either. You are assuming everyone will turn gay and no more kids. THat will NEVER happen.

Just like car accidents will never kill all the humans, but they do take out A LOT.

Same sex may have been happening with cavemen, yes. And it was still wrong then too. That is not how it's supposed to be done.

Supposed to be? Who are you to say what's right and wrong?

People do whatever they want to do, you have no say on this matter and your feelings are quite shallow.

To say designed, I didn't mean to imply there was a designer. I am not religious. What I meant was we evolved to this state and this is how we are supposed to be. If gay was how we are supposed to be, then we would all be dead. So, yeah, problem there.

Again you are assuming EVERYONE does it. Humans are different in so many ways you can't just say "everyone is the same".

If you look at just about any species on this planet they ALL vary within each group.

prayingmentis female kills the male after sex, are the species extinct? Were they designed to really do that?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Change in definition not found. Some of the things you are mentioning are about the proper way of find a marital partner. Do we need to change the definition of marriage to account for finding a partner online too?

No, each thing I listed was about the very concept of what marriage is.

Also I am confused about why we are even saying that buying a woman from her dad would constitute marriage. After all I thought the argument was previously made that marriage was inherently a contract and requires the consent of everyone being married?

That is why it is not just about how you find that bride, but about if she is an equal participant or something akin to property. Until very recently women did not need to consent to marriage for them to get married off (in fact this change in definition is so new it has not even been universally accepted yet, many cultures and religions still see consent as unnecessary.) Only their father had to consent. We changed the definition. Our current definition requires consent. That is a major change in the very concept of marriage.

As for inter-racial marriage... find me one shred of historical evidence of someone saying that a black person and a white person cannot be married?

There is an entire article on Miscegenation laws in Wikipedia if you need a lesson in recent history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States

They thought it was wrong for people of different races to get married. But they didnt think it was against the definition.

Yes, they did. From the same wiki article:

Sometimes, the individuals attempting to marry would not be held guilty of miscegenation itself, but felony charges of adultery or fornication would be brought against them instead.

Why would they charge a married couple with adultery? Because they did not believe that what they had was marriage as they defined it.

I also found this gem in the article:

The constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama (106 U.S. 583). The Supreme Court ruled that the Alabama anti-miscegenation statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to the court, both races were treated equally, because whites and blacks were punished in equal measure for breaking the law against interracial marriage and interracial sex.

Sound like a familiar argument?

For a more modern example see child marriage. Pretty much everyone in the first world would agree this is wrong. But I have never heard anyone say that it isn't marriage.

Now you are just playing semantics. Otherwise you are back to a definition that does not require consent, and then we are back to buying our brides. I think most people would say that they are using the word marriage as a linguistic shortcut, but it does not in fact fit their concept of marriage.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That is not the same thing. Making metals and cars and such would not cause the species to die out. That is the problem. It is inherently wrong.

As you have been told repeatedly, it is not a problem, because a small minority of people being gay has no effect on the human population (which, if anything, is growing too quickly.) Enough with this red herring already. It's simply illogical.

Furthermore, if homosexuality has a genetic component, then forcing gays to pretend they are straight is likely to lead to more of it.

 

[Vaux]

And gay people won't either. You are assuming everyone will turn gay and no more kids. THat will NEVER happen.

Just like car accidents will never kill all the humans, but they do take out A LOT.

It doesn't matter if everyone does it or not. That doesn't change the fact. Not everyone in the world is addicted to meth, only some, so that makes it right I guess?

Cars don't kill humans. Car accidents do. So yeah, if we all had car accidents, that would be bad. Same if only some people do, still bad.

Supposed to be? Who are you to say what's right and wrong?

People do whatever they want to do, you have no say on this matter and your feelings are quite shallow.

I don't say what is right or wrong. Evolution has already said it. I am just making an observation. I am not saying you can't be gay, I believe people can do what they want. But let's not pretend it's a good thing, because it is not.

Again you are assuming EVERYONE does it. Humans are different in so many ways you can't just say "everyone is the same".

Yes I can. We are all born either male or female, with male or female parts. Everyone is the same.

prayingmentis female kills the male after sex, are the species extinct? Were they designed to really do that?

The praying mantis sometimes kills its mate, yes. But you realize that is after they mated, not before? So no, they aren't extinct. It's thought that the female does that as a signal for the male to release the sperm. And yes, that is their nature to do that. Why I don't know. But obviously that is what is natural for them.

 

[Vaux]

As you have been told repeatedly, it is not a problem, because a small minority of people being gay has no effect on the human population (which, if anything, is growing too quickly.) Enough with this red herring already. It's simply illogical.

Furthermore, if homosexuality has a genetic component, then forcing gays to pretend they are straight is likely to lead to more of it.

As I have told you before, the small minority of people being gay is not relevant to the fact if it is right or wrong.

Furthermore, you can't force a gay person to pretend they are straight. They can go be gay. But don't pretend it's right and let them put a big stamp of approval on it by letting them marry. That's all I am saying.

 

[nehalem256]

No, each thing I listed was about the very concept of what marriage is.

Each thing you listed was a man married to a woman. The only change was how many marriages a man was allowed to contract and how he found a woman to marry.

Is the definition of marriage changed because you meet your wife on match.com instead of at a barn-raising?

No one ever said the definition of marriage is a man buying his wife from her father. You would be describing courtship.

That is why it is not just about how you find that bride, but about if she is an equal participant or something akin to property. Until very recently women did not need to consent to marriage for them to get married off (in fact this change in definition is so new it has not even been universally accepted yet, many cultures and religions still see consent as unnecessary.) Only their father had to consent. We changed the definition. Our current definition requires consent. That is a major change in the very concept of marriage.

Did you miss this post by Charles?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35088996&postcount=74

Unless all participants consent to a union it is impossible for it to be marriage. :sneaky:

There is an entire article on Miscegenation laws in Wikipedia if you need a lesson in recent history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States



Yes, they did. From the same wiki article:

Sometimes, the individuals attempting to marry would not be held guilty of miscegenation itself, but felony charges of adultery or fornication would be brought against them instead.

Why would they charge a married couple with adultery? Because they did not believe that what they had was marriage as they defined it.

Because they were only "attempting to marry" and were therefore not married?

And you appear to be having an issue understanding the difference between the concept of can't(as impossible) and shouldn't.

You shouldn't marry your sister, but it is not really a violation of the concept of marriage.

Now you are just playing semantics. Otherwise you are back to a definition that does not require consent, and then we are back to buying our brides. I think most people would say that they are using the word marriage as a linguistic shortcut, but it does not in fact fit their concept of marriage.

No because the age of the participants is not really part of the concept of marriage. While child marriage may be on the extreme end of it consider for example a state that allows marriage at 17 or 16. Is anyone going to say "that isn't marriage D:". Of course not, because the age of the participants is not part of the definition of marriage. We just as a modern civilized society set reasonable limits.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Unless all participants consent to a union it is impossible for it to be marriage. :sneaky:

You think you're being clever, but you're really not.

If there is no consent, there is no marriage. Forcing a girl to "marry" against her will is and always has been a form of slavery.

We don't treat people like slaves in this country any longer. Marriage is a consensual contract and requires consent from both parties.

 

[SMOGZINN]

As I have told you before, the small minority of people being gay is not relevant to the fact if it is right or wrong.

Furthermore, you can't force a gay person to pretend they are straight. They can go be gay. But don't pretend it's right and let them put a big stamp of approval on it by letting them marry. That's all I am saying.

You can't have it both ways. Either gay is a choice, in which we can place a moral value on it, or it is not a choice in which case it does not have a moral component.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I don't say what is right or wrong. Evolution has already said it. I am just making an observation. I am not saying you can't be gay, I believe people can do what they want. But let's not pretend it's a good thing, because it is not.

Evolution has said no such thing. After Billions of years, across millions of species homosexuallity is still present. It is most assuredly not 'wrong' according to the only metric we have to judge evolutionary fitness. You just are not smart enough to see the non-obvious evolutionary advantage it brings.

Yes I can. We are all born either male or female, with male or female parts. Everyone is the same.

You need to rethink your premises because this one is factually wrong.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Each thing you listed was a man married to a woman. The only change was how many marriages a man was allowed to contract and how he found a woman to marry.

Why, yes. Besides all the things we agree are different is it still the same.

Unless all participants consent to a union it is impossible for it to be marriage. :sneaky:

Now it is, because we redefined what marriage means.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's kind of bizarre that the same people arguing that we should preserve "traditional marriage" openly acknowledge that forms of what was once called "marriage" are now considered completely unacceptable, and thus that the concept of "traditional marriage" doesn't exist.

 

[Craig234]

...and people aren't born having sex. What I said is this: I look at premarital sex the same as same-sex, sex. The two are the same to me, for example, not acceptable by Christian standards.

That's a bad analogy. A better one would be if you said everyone has to refrain from sex.

Your objection to pre-marital sex leaves the path open for people to marry and have sex. You offer no such path for gays, who you demand remain celibate forever.

I'd agree that pre-marital sex applies equally to gays and heterosexuals, but so does the right to marry.

Does it matter how I view it? No, it doesn't. Just giving you an example of what I mean. I didn't say being "gay" was a behavior, either.

It matters if you support discrimination or vote for it.

I didn't say you said being gay was a behavior. I said the opposite.

Ah, exactly what I mean, really.

See?

Moral opposition, IMO, is very subjective -- each person holds his own set of morals. What may be justification for me may not be for you.

I am not opposed, in any way, to people being born gay -- they're born gay. How can I oppose that? I'd be opposing people.

Some moral positions are subjective, but it goes to the definition of a moral issue when the person didn't choose something.

LOL -- I don't have the justification to tell them they can't have partners... I don't whatsoever, but please Craig, since you're so bent on misrepresenting me, I would love for you to find a post where I am for restricting marriage to hetero couples legally. Or find where I am for the second batch of lies you wrote.

And here you are offensive. Instead of discussing to resolve where you disagree with something, you post a lie. And offensive means that is the end of any discussion.

Reading no further. If you think I misrepresented your position, you could point that out.

 

[chucky2]

Your semantics argument holds no water. We gladly change the meaning of words all the time. Marriage use to mean one and as many women as he could afford, we then changed it to one man and the woman he was able to buy from her dad, we then changed it to mean one man and one woman of the same race, we no longer liked those definitions so we changed it.

This is the way of the world. If you don't like it you should probably get off the internet. It is changing words faster than even Webster can keep up.

Unfortunately for the gay "marriage" supporters, my semantics isn't semantics, it's simply the long understood meaning of the word that you all area trying to change for the benefit of your agenda...so it does matter. I like how you listed your examples, they all had one thing in common, no matter the change: Male being joined with female(s). Despite the changes, no one back then, when PC anything goes wasn't the flavor of the day, was insane enough to suggest that two males or two females should be married. They'd just be dismissed for the absurdity.

P.S. Not all gays are 'born gay'. The three gay people I know aren't gay anymore, despite professing how gay they were the years I knew them. They're straight now. Turns out, shit happened to them that they'd repressed that mind F'd them so much it turned them gay. Not that this matters to whether gays should have civil union rights be equal to marriage rights, and/or that the Gov should just only recognize civil unions. I just point it out for again the narrative being pushed that gays in totality are 'born gay' and thus who could possibly go against nature? Some gays are born gay, others are made gay.

Chuck

 

[Retro Rob]

That's a bad analogy. A better one would be if you said everyone has to refrain from sex.

...yeah, but I was making a moral analogy... or attempting to anyway.

Your objection to pre-marital sex leaves the path open for people to marry and have sex. You offer no such path for gays, who you demand remain celibate forever.

Where do you get such information? I am not demanding celibacy. I am not demanding anything of them.

You keep getting what I feel personally, mixed up with what I'd do legally.

It matters if you support discrimination or vote for it.

Ah... here's the key post right here. Sure, while I feel a certain way personally, there is no way, shape, or form, would I vote for discrmination of any sort.

And here you are offensive. Instead of discussing to resolve where you disagree with something, you post a lie. And offensive means that is the end of any discussion.

It wasn't a lie, you were saying ealier, and I quoted you, that my "bigotry motivates my support for denying rights" to gays -- I asked you to find some evidence that I am supporting restricting gays rights.

You can't, so now you run.

Reading no further. If you think I misrepresented your position, you could point that out.

I did point it out, and if you don't like the manner in which I did, then grow some thick skin.

How many times have you directly and indirectly called me a bigot? You see me whining about getting "offended"? Don't dish it if you can't take it, Craig.

 

[jackstar7]

Unfortunately for the gay "marriage" supporters, my semantics isn't semantics, it's simply the long understood meaning of the word that you all area trying to change for the benefit of your agenda...so it does matter. I like how you listed your examples, they all had one thing in common, no matter the change: Male being joined with female(s). Despite the changes, no one back then, when PC anything goes wasn't the flavor of the day, was insane enough to suggest that two males or two females should be married. They'd just be dismissed for the absurdity.

Chuck

Do you mind explaining what you think semantics means?

 

[Pulsar]

No because the age of the participants is not really part of the concept of marriage. While child marriage may be on the extreme end of it consider for example a state that allows marriage at 17 or 16. Is anyone going to say "that isn't marriage D:". Of course not, because the age of the participants is not part of the definition of marriage. We just as a modern civilized society set reasonable limits.

You are 100% wrong, and this has already been discussed in this thread. Just because you claim marriage has a certain definition does not make it so.

Marriage is a legal term, and has been for hundreds of years. As such, it is defined very clearly in the legal system, and Marriage absolutely does specify ages at which marriage is allowed.

 

[Pulsar]

Unfortunately for the gay "marriage" supporters, my semantics isn't semantics, it's simply the long understood meaning of the word that you all area trying to change for the benefit of your agenda...so it does matter. I like how you listed your examples, they all had one thing in common, no matter the change: Male being joined with female(s). Despite the changes, no one back then, when PC anything goes wasn't the flavor of the day, was insane enough to suggest that two males or two females should be married. They'd just be dismissed for the absurdity.

And you would be wrong again. This has already been explained several times.

Educate yourself on the roll of same sex marriages in history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Not that this matters to whether gays should have civil union rights be equal to marriage rights, and/or that the Gov should just only recognize civil unions. I just point it out for again the narrative being pushed that gays in totality are 'born gay' and thus who could possibly go against nature? Some gays are born gay, others are made gay.

Chuck

Did someone in this thread suggest otherwise? I must have missed it.