Polyamory and Marriage

[nehalem256]

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.

Actually isn't that exactly the argument advanced by supporters of SSM?

They declared marriage to have a completely new definition and therefore marriage now meant what THEY meant. And their "rights" were therefore being violated.

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.

Now first of all I am confused... I thought marriage was a religious term?

And second you appear to be confusing the idea of what marriage is, with what marriages society should allow.

The required age to get married is not part of the definition of marriage. Just like the fact that you have to be 16 is not part of the definition of what driver's license is. If some state started restricting DLs to 18+ or allowing 15 year olds to get them no one would be saying you are redefining what a DL is.

If you started issuing DLs to herd cattle that would be a redefinition of what DL is.

 

[nehalem256]

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



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

Perhaps you should try reading your own link

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage. This is particularly true in the case of Sparta, where the relationship was intended to further a young boy's military training. While the relationship was generally lifelong and of profound emotional significance to the participants, it was not considered marriage by contemporary culture, and the relationship continued even after participants reached age 20 and married women, as was expected in the culture.

Numerous examples of same sex unions among peers, not age-structured, are found in Ancient Greek writings. Lucian describes a debate in which a proponent of same-sex pederastic relationships describes them as being more stable than heterosexual relationships and goes on to express the hope that he will be buried with his lover after they have passed their lives together.[29] Famous Greek couples in same sex relationships include Harmodius and Aristogiton, Pelopidas and Epaminondas and Alexander and Bogoas. However in none of these same sex unions is the Greek word for "marriage" ever mentioned. The Romans appear to have been the first to perform same sex marriages.

The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[30]
At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.[31] The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. First with one of his freedman, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride, and later as a groom Nero married a young boy, who resembled one of his concubines,[32] named Sporus in a very public ceremony... with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse A friend gave the "bride" away "as required by law." The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.[33] Emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, as his husband.[34] He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.[35]

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).

It seems your link really makes the case that marriage was regarded as between a man a woman in the ancient world.

 

[chucky2]

Do you mind explaining what you think semantics means?

Semantics would be arguing if the color of a plastic cup is burgandy or dark red. Semantics is not arguing if equal parts clear water + clear water really equals equal parts clear water + dirt. There is no argument there, the resulting mixtures are not even close to being the same. The result of one of those mixtures is clear water (gay "marriage"), the result of the the other mixture is what we commonly (across cultures and thousands of years) refer to as mud (hetero marriage). Gay "marriage" advocates are trying to shoehorn what is understood as mud to also include clear water. It does not work, nor will it ever work*.

*: Although I freely admit, due to the idiocy of PC culture and the gullability of the young, gay "marriage" advocates literally will get the understanding of marriage to be a socially accepted perversion to include gay unions in the term marriage. This doesn't make it correct, it just makes their stategy effective. I know gay "marriage" advocates do not care, their war will be won, but it is highly amusing to people like me watching the general public be led around like sheeple, getting played left and right.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Perhaps you should try reading your own link


It seems your link really makes the case that marriage was regarded as between a man a woman in the ancient world.

Owned.

 

[AustinInDallas]

Im apathetic on the whole marriage issue, but im just curious where you draw the line for marriage? what does marriage mean to you? How would you define it as a law?

 

[jackstar7]

Semantics would be arguing if the color of a plastic cup is burgandy or dark red. Semantics is not arguing if equal parts clear water + clear water really equals equal parts clear water + dirt. There is no argument there, the resulting mixtures are not even close to being the same. The result of one of those mixtures is clear water (gay "marriage"), the result of the the other mixture is what we commonly (across cultures and thousands of years) refer to as mud (hetero marriage). Gay "marriage" advocates are trying to shoehorn what is understood as mud to also include clear water. It does not work, nor will it ever work*.

*: Although I freely admit, due to the idiocy of PC culture and the gullability of the young, gay "marriage" advocates literally will get the understanding of marriage to be a socially accepted perversion to include gay unions in the term marriage. This doesn't make it correct, it just makes their stategy effective. I know gay "marriage" advocates do not care, their war will be won, but it is highly amusing to people like me watching the general public be led around like sheeple, getting played left and right.

Chuck

Just for my own clarity:

Semantics
1: the study of meanings:

a: the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development

 

[chucky2]

There is no semantic debate with marriage, unless you want to take the gay "marriage" proponent view that the issue is already decided, that clear water can now be called mud, that that is just 'an issue of semantics'. Get real...

 

[smackababy]

There is no semantic debate with marriage, unless you want to take the gay "marriage" proponent view that the issue is already decided, that clear water can now be called mud, that that is just 'an issue of semantics'. Get real...

You sure are hung up on this clear water / mud crap.

You are arguing the semantics of marriage. The fact is marriage in the United States of America is a contract that grants the entitlement of government benefits to the individuals involved. The problem is, the government is discriminating who is entitled to these benefits based on sexual preference.

Ideally, the government realizes that marriage (in every form) doesn't do anything to help them at all and the abolish it from law. Everyone equally does not get benefits now. But we know that isn't going to happen. Gay and lesbians currently just seek the ability to legally obtain rights denied to them. They don't care what religious whackjobs call it, they just want the government (which is supposed to be a secular entity acting on behalf of the all the people they represent) to allow equality for rights given.

So, if you want to continue this silly argument of what to call the contract that gives these benefits, make another thread and go on about it.

This thread was specifically created to discuss marriage* in the context of polyamory.


*marriage being the common term used to describe a union between parties, granting government benefits.

 

[randomrogue]

There is no semantic debate with marriage, unless you want to take the gay "marriage" proponent view that the issue is already decided, that clear water can now be called mud, that that is just 'an issue of semantics'. Get real...

If there's no issue of semantics then can we at least agree that by discriminating against one group of people due to their sexual preference that we are violating their civil rights? Good. Glad we cleared that up.

IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE VIOLATING THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS THEN YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY IT. LOGICALLY.

 

[nehalem256]

You sure are hung up on this clear water / mud crap.

You are arguing the semantics of marriage. The fact is marriage in the United States of America is a contract that grants the entitlement of government benefits to the individuals involved. The problem is, the government is discriminating who is entitled to these benefits based on sexual preference.

Ideally, the government realizes that marriage (in every form) doesn't do anything to help them at all and the abolish it from law. Everyone equally does not get benefits now. But we know that isn't going to happen. Gay and lesbians currently just seek the ability to legally obtain rights denied to them. They don't care what religious whackjobs call it, they just want the government (which is supposed to be a secular entity acting on behalf of the all the people they represent) to allow equality for rights given.

So, if you want to continue this silly argument of what to call the contract that gives these benefits, make another thread and go on about it.

No, that is an opinion. And in fact it is an opinion contradicted by Court ruling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

And in fact I doubt that most people get married because they want some sweet sweet government benefits.

And somehow I doubt gays and lesbians would accept a "Gay Union" which granted the exact same rights as marriage.

This thread was specifically created to discuss marriage* in the context of polyamory.

*marriage being the common term used to describe a union between parties, granting government benefits.

Funny, when I said in P&N that liberals viewed marriage as just a way to get government benefits I was ridiculed :whiste:

 

[nehalem256]

If there's no issue of semantics then can we at least agree that by discriminating against one group of people due to their sexual preference that we are violating their civil rights? Good. Glad we cleared that up.

IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE VIOLATING THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS THEN YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY IT. LOGICALLY.

We cannot agree on that. And in fact no one really believes that. Use any sexual preference other than hetero/homo and violating their civil rights is fine.

Your logic is circular and only makes sense if you already accept that SSM is marriage.

 

[smackababy]

No, that is an opinion. And in fact it is an opinion contradicted by Court ruling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

And in fact I doubt that most people get married because they want some sweet sweet government benefits.

Opinions not found. What exactly is marriage under the US law then?
Here let me help you out. "According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights and responsibilities apply to only male-female couples, from the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage as between a man and a woman." direct from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

Every benefit, right, and privilege is denied to anyone not fitting into the sexual orientation required by DOMA.

Funny, when I said in P&N that liberals viewed marriage as just a way to get government benefits I was ridiculed :whiste:

Your first problem is you were in P&N...

And somehow I doubt gays and lesbians would accept a "Gay Union" which granted the exact same rights as marriage.

I highly doubt if you picked a name not meant to be offensive, anyone would care. The only people that care are people who think marriage has some specific meaning placed by religious context. If they just struck all reference to marriage from the laws and referred it as a union, and granted this to every equally, gays and lesbians would have no problem.

Marriage and hold it's "sanctity" by the church people who agree it is wrong for a man and a man to marry, but a man can marry a 13 year old gifted by her family in a drive through by a guy dressed up as Elvis.

 

[nehalem256]

Opinions not found. What exactly is marriage under the US law then?
Here let me help you out. "According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights and responsibilities apply to only male-female couples, from the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage as between a man and a woman." direct from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
Every benefit, right, and privilege is denied to anyone not fitting into the sexual orientation required by DOMA.

Marriage is a multi-faceted institution that includes a legal component.

Having marriage be "just a contract" would be terrible. For example if marriage was just a contract there would be no reason not to marry your child in order to avoid estate taxes.

 

[chucky2]

You sure are hung up on this clear water / mud crap.

You are arguing the semantics of marriage. The fact is marriage in the United States of America is a contract that grants the entitlement of government benefits to the individuals involved. The problem is, the government is discriminating who is entitled to these benefits based on sexual preference.

Ideally, the government realizes that marriage (in every form) doesn't do anything to help them at all and the abolish it from law. Everyone equally does not get benefits now. But we know that isn't going to happen. Gay and lesbians currently just seek the ability to legally obtain rights denied to them. They don't care what religious whackjobs call it, they just want the government (which is supposed to be a secular entity acting on behalf of the all the people they represent) to allow equality for rights given.

So, if you want to continue this silly argument of what to call the contract that gives these benefits, make another thread and go on about it.

This thread was specifically created to discuss marriage* in the context of polyamory.


*marriage being the common term used to describe a union between parties, granting government benefits.

No, actually I'm not arguing the semantics of marriage at all. Marriage is between a man a woman, or, in cultures/religions were men can marry multiple women, between a man and multiple women. That is marriage. Gays therefore, cannot be married. The End.

What does need to change in the US, since we're not about descrimination here, is Gov and public businesses discriminating on basis of union. Because it was absurd in the past, just as it is now, to suggest that gays be married, the problem of rights of unioned couples, all who were hetero, being referred to as married, was never a problem. Obviously using that term is a problem given the pleas of gays and poly couples. The Reality is, that term never should have been used to determine rights of unioned couples. What should have been used was civil union. That term, civil union, can encompass whatever two or more adults want to enter into. No perversion of marriage needed.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

If there's no issue of semantics then can we at least agree that by discriminating against one group of people due to their sexual preference that we are violating their civil rights? Good. Glad we cleared that up.

IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE VIOLATING THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS THEN YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY IT. LOGICALLY.

Agreed. I don't, nor have ever, felt that gays in a civil union should have any less rights than hetero couples in a marriage. I simply object to the perversion of the word and understanding of marriage because of PC BS. Really I don't know why gays have become so fixated on the term marriage, and have wasted so much time on it. They really should have just pushed for civil union rights that were the legal equal to hetero marriage and this issue would have been decided and behind us decades ago at this point. Their insistance on perverting the term marriage really makes me believe they are more emotionally tied to wanting to be seen as equals to hetero couples in totality (sort of a, That's right dad, I'm a married gay man, just as good as youand mom, so take that!) than actually receiving equal benefits.

Not interested in perverting the understanding of marriage because Western society is in a mode of granting whatever to whatever group whines loud enough.

Chuck

 

[jackstar7]

Our language has never been stagnant, and least so when it comes to immaterial constructs.

Your loud desire to restrict this ligual evolution is no more valid than what you oppose.

 

[smackababy]

No, actually I'm not arguing the semantics of marriage at all. Marriage is between a man a woman, or, in cultures/religions were men can marry multiple women, between a man and multiple women. That is marriage. Gays therefore, cannot be married. The End.

What does need to change in the US, since we're not about descrimination here, is Gov and public businesses discriminating on basis of union. Because it was absurd in the past, just as it is now, to suggest that gays be married, the problem of rights of unioned couples, all who were hetero, being referred to as married, was never a problem. Obviously using that term is a problem given the pleas of gays and poly couples. The Reality is, that term never should have been used to determine rights of unioned couples. What should have been used was civil union. That term, civil union, can encompass whatever two or more adults want to enter into. No perversion of marriage needed.

Chuck

The problem is the term no longer means what you are suggesting. It is common usage to mean a civil union. So, you are arguing the semantics of the term marriage. Plenty of words evolve over time to mean different things. In fact, queer and gay used to mean something entirely different than we use them to mean today. Forum has taken a new meaning. So, if you are the evolution of language, too bad.

 

[smackababy]

Marriage is a multi-faceted institution that includes a legal component.

Having marriage be "just a contract" would be terrible. For example if marriage was just a contract there would be no reason not to marry your child in order to avoid estate taxes.

No, it wouldn't be terrible. Please come up with another absurd example to just prove you are not being reasonable again. I am done responding to you.

 

[chucky2]

Our language has never been stagnant, and least so when it comes to immaterial constructs.

Your loud desire to restrict this ligual evolution is no more valid than what you oppose.

The problem is the term no longer means what you are suggesting. It is common usage to mean a civil union. So, you are arguing the semantics of the term marriage. Plenty of words evolve over time to mean different things. In fact, queer and gay used to mean something entirely different than we use them to mean today. Forum has taken a new meaning. So, if you are the evolution of language, too bad.

When it comes to the understanding of marriage at least, in your opinions. Which of course is how gay "marriage" proponents have been able to pervert the word: Change enough opinion to get people to agree/naturally start using the word marriage to refer to a gay union. Congrats I guess? Doesn't make it correct, just makes it done.

Next up: We will not call bushes bushes any longer, for bushes feel discriminated against that they're not as majestic as trees, despite...not being as magestic as trees. Bleeding Hearts feel sympathic that something feels bad and is not included, and since we have reached a critical mass of enough Bleeding Hearts, we will now refer to bushes as trees so the bushes and Bleeding Hearts can feel all warm and toasty inside. Society has spoken.

Sounds legit...

 

[jackstar7]

When it comes to the understanding of marriage at least, in your opinions. Which of course is how gay "marriage" proponents have been able to pervert the word: Change enough opinion to get people to agree/naturally start using the word marriage to refer to a gay union. Congrats I guess? Doesn't make it correct, just makes it done.

Removed pointless "analogy".

You have this conservative stance on this specific term that seems justified solely by your ability to be stubborn. Words change meanings. Language evolves. Names for legal/social constructs are not immune simply because it bothers you so very much.

What makes marriage immune?

You cannot point to a marriage. It is an artificial construct and in most cases a legal one. It has no physical manifestation to make it comparable to mud, bushes, or whatever else you're going to use to try and sell this as some linguistic sacrilege.

 

[SlitheryDee]

What's being polyamorous like on a practical level? Does it mean you just sleep with whoever you want (provided they consent) and don't hide it from any other partners? That sounds like it could get complicated. I've got no problem with it or marriages with more than two participants, but it's not how I am wired personally.

It's very interesting to me to think about though. Heinlein's book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" deals with multiple partner marriages quite a bit. I found the idea that a single marriage could last for generations as new people kept marrying into it while older people died off to be pretty fascinating. The potential for a sizable economic advantage over a traditional marriage is there as well, as it would sidestep a few inheritance issues we have currently, not to mention the fact that there could be many wage earners within a single household.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I've said it before. No matter how you define marriage, if it unfairly discriminates against a group of people it must be changed or banned. So if you want to hold your definition of "Traditional" Marriage then we must bad marriage for all.

 

[smackababy]

What's being polyamorous like on a practical level? Does it mean you just sleep with whoever you want (provided they consent) and don't hide it from any other partners? That sounds like it could get complicated. I've got no problem with it or marriages with more than two participants, but it's not how I am wired personally.

It's very interesting to me to think about though. Heinlein's book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" deals with multiple partner marriages quite a bit. I found the idea that a single marriage could last for generations as new people kept marrying into it while older people died off to be pretty fascinating. The potential for a sizable economic advantage over a traditional marriage is there as well, as it would sidestep a few inheritance issues we have currently, not to mention the fact that there could be many wage earners within a single household.

In America, it is generally (from my outside understanding) a full relationship where someone has multiple partners. Quite often I hear it being a girl with two male lovers. The males are not involved, and are friends, but they share the girl.

Sadly, in far too many countries, it is generally a human rights violation: a male with several wives, whom are basically slaves. This has been practiced a bit by fringe groups and such in America, but is generally limited to countries with less of a focus on women's rights.

 

[Retro Rob]

I've said it before. No matter how you define marriage, if it unfairly discriminates against a group of people it must be changed or banned. So if you want to hold your definition of "Traditional" Marriage then we must bad marriage for all.

So are you willing to ban marriage entirely because a minority of people can't right now?

Are you willing to ban pay, and subsequently, working to make a living because women are not equally paid in the workforce?

This is not really a serious question, but I would like to know your answer and why.

 

[Pulsar]

So are you willing to ban marriage entirely because a minority of people can't right now?

Are you willing to ban pay, and subsequently, working to make a living because women are not equally paid in the workforce?

This is not really a serious question, but I would like to know your answer and why.

I don't believe that's the only option he gave you, and I would guess he thinks you're reasonable enough to change the definition rather than banning it.

I may not agree with his scorched earth policy, but I certainly understand the need to modify discriminatory laws.