Who should be allowed to marry?

[Munky]

The words "allowed" and "marry" should not even be in the same sentence, as far as I'm concerned. Get the government out of people's personal lives and bedrooms.

 

[Moonbeam]

There are people on this planet who have real healthy feelings and who know what love is. These people pair bond and form monogamous relationships, ordinarily, with people of the opposite sex. The institution of marriage is a natural outgrowth of this. It is one basis or leg of our evolutionary success. Occasionally folk are born who are attracted to the same sex but with all the rest the same feelings. It is the scientific facts about ourselves and our empathy for others who are mentally healthy that drives us to a new definition of marriage, one that includes pair bonds formed between members of the same sex. We can feel, those of us who are mentally healthy, that they feel as we do except for the gender difference. Love is love and marriage is for lovers. It is what we were meant for. This is obvious to all but the mentally ill.

 

[nehalem256]

Society of 1950 didn't quite yet recognize the value or importance of sending someone to land on the moon, either. Soon after 1950 they did.

Society of 1950 COULDN'T send someone to the moon. It has nothing to do with recognizing or not recognizing the value of doing so.

And if going to the moon is so valuable why haven't we gone back in 40 years?

Why do "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing?

Why did you deflect?

 

[zsdersw]

Society of 1950 COULDN'T send someone to the moon. It has nothing to do with recognizing or not recognizing the value of doing so.

Sure it does. We didn't see the need, so there was no will to start funding and doing the necessary R&D. By 1960 we did see the need and value of it, though.

And if going to the moon is so valuable why haven't we gone back in 40 years?

NASA had other priorities and limited funds? We are going to go back to the moon, too... and NASA will readily talk about the need and importance of doing so.

Why did you deflect?

Because it was a stupid question. I'm not in charge or representative of "gay activists"... I don't know and don't care why they want to argue the issue a certain way.

 

[cybrsage]

There is no difference between 2 consenting adults getting married and one consenting adult marrying his toaster.

If a person wants to get married to his toaster how does than affect you? Are you going to suddenly become overcome with lust and start co-populating with it? Is that what you are afraid of?

Unless you are talking about Cylons (toasters), both parties must be able to understand and sign the legal contract of marriage. This is why non-humans are not allowed to marry humans and why there is a lower age limit on marriage.

 

[cybrsage]

There are people on this planet who have real healthy feelings and who know what love is.

You are not one of them, sadly.

 

[cybrsage]

This is ideal, but will never happen. Too many of the heterosexual majority either don't care enough to do anything or are against this idea.

The majority of homosexuals are against it as well.

 

[nehalem256]

Unless you are talking about Cylons (toasters), both parties must be able to understand and sign the legal contract of marriage. This is why non-humans are not allowed to marry humans and why there is a lower age limit on marriage.

Only if you embrace a bigoted objectphobic definition of marriage. If it is wrong for marriage to discriminate against sexual minorities, then its definition must be changed to not discriminate against any sexual minorities.

Sure it does. We didn't see the need, so there was no will to start funding and doing the necessary R&D. By 1960 we did see the need and value of it, though.

There was never any NEED to go to the moon. It was basically just a giant FU to the USSR.

Because it was a stupid question. I'm not in charge or representative of "gay activists"... I don't know and don't care why they want to argue the issue a certain way.

Well since you "pretend" not the know I will tell you. Arguing that gay marriage is ALSO valuable implicitly says it is different. And anyone with any sense can see that opposite-sex marriage is more valuable to society (see procreation) which is why it has been recognized for 1000s of years.

So the obvious question would be why recognize 2 unequal relationships as equals?

 

[soulcougher73]

Only if you embrace a bigoted objectphobic definition of marriage. If it is wrong for marriage to discriminate against sexual minorities, then its definition must be changed to not discriminate against any sexual minorities.

The day objects get a brain and can legally consent to something is the day you may move a point. Until then, just give it up already. Or the day you learn what 2 consenting adults actually means in the eyes of the law. Maybe then you'll drop the same ole tired bit.

 

[BoberFett]

The day objects get a brain and can legally consent to something is the day you may move a point. Until then, just give it up already. Or the day you learn what 2 consenting adults actually means in the eyes of the law. Maybe then you'll drop the same ole tired bit.

Why only 2 consenting adults? Why can't 3 consenting adults get married?

This is a serious question. Why do gay marriage supporters continue to promote bigotry against the polyamorous? Invariably they trot out the same old lines about child abuse, because clearly anybody who supports polygamy wants to marry an 8 year old girl. Which is completely different than the old lines that homophobes used to use about gays wanting to molest little boys.

 

[soulcougher73]

Why only 2 consenting adults? Why can't 3 consenting adults get married?

This is a serious question. Why do gay marriage supporters continue to promote bigotry against the polyamorous? Invariably they trot out the same old lines about child abuse, because clearly anybody who supports polygamy wants to marry an 8 year old girl. Which is completely different than the old lines that homophobes used to use about gays wanting to molest little boys.

Im fine with 3 or more consenting adults. Maybe i shouldnt have put 2, its the consenting adult part that is important.

 

[BoberFett]

Im fine with 3 more more consenting adults. Maybe i shouldnt have put 2, its the consenting adult part that is important.

Gotcha. :thumbsup:

I seem to remember a good bit on Penn & Teller Bullshit about polygamy, and marriage and sex in general.

 

[SKORPI0]

D:

 

[nehalem256]

The day objects get a brain and can legally consent to something is the day you may move a point. Until then, just give it up already. Or the day you learn what 2 consenting adults actually means in the eyes of the law. Maybe then you'll drop the same ole tired bit.

What has "2 consenting adults" got to do with marriage? Other than you hold up as the ONE TRUE DEFINITION of marriage in order to justify your discrimination against sexual minorities.

I thought discriminating against sexual minorities was wrong?

Who is harmed by allowing a consenting adult to marry his toaster? No one. This is the exact same justification used by same-sex marriage advocates.

 

[nehalem256]

D:

Love is love right?

 

[werepossum]

There are people on this planet who have real healthy feelings and who know what love is. These people pair bond and form monogamous relationships, ordinarily, with people of the opposite sex. The institution of marriage is a natural outgrowth of this. It is one basis or leg of our evolutionary success. Occasionally folk are born who are attracted to the same sex but with all the rest the same feelings. It is the scientific facts about ourselves and our empathy for others who are mentally healthy that drives us to a new definition of marriage, one that includes pair bonds formed between members of the same sex. We can feel, those of us who are mentally healthy, that they feel as we do except for the gender difference. Love is love and marriage is for lovers. It is what we were meant for. This is obvious to all but the mentally ill.

Pretty much this. I think there is absolutely no justification for gay marriage to be prohibited. I don't particularly care either way about incestuous marriages or multiple partner marriages; I'm not at all sure there are valid societal reasons today for prohibiting those, but I do recognize that both represent larger changes to the definition of marriage and thus should stand or fall on their own merits, and I've not been exposed to those arguments to form an informed opinion one way or another.

As a principle, before treating one individual or group preferentially government should always be required to make a case for a necessary societal need that can only be met through that discrimination. Obviously if one extends the definition of marriage to non-consenting or mentally incompetent adults or minors too young to give informed consent that's a different story, but it's worth pointing out that the historic definition of marriage includes its share of those as well, and any discussion of traditional marriage needs to be with the underlying understanding that we're really talking about traditional marriage within the modern Judeo-Christian Western civilization.

 

[monovillage]

The question "who should be allowed to marry" is pure bullshit, the question should always be "Who should be prevented from forming a marriage union and what is the compelling reason to prevent them from doing it?" If there isn't a compelling reason to prevent it then it should automatically be legal.

I see no compelling reason for gays or lesbians not to marry and no compelling reason to ban multiple partner marriages. Standard legislation should be applied to keep tax, insurance, inheritance and other issues reasonable and settled.

 

[nehalem256]

Pretty much this. I think there is absolutely no justification for gay marriage to be prohibited. I don't particularly care either way about incestuous marriages or multiple partner marriages; I'm not at all sure there are valid societal reasons today for prohibiting those, but I do recognize that both represent larger changes to the definition of marriage and thus should stand or fall on their own merits, and I've not been exposed to those arguments to form an informed opinion one way or another.

Actually neither polygamy or incestuous marriage represent a change to the definition of marriage. They represent a change to which marriages we allow.

As a principle, before treating one individual or group preferentially government should always be required to make a case for a necessary societal need that can only be met through that discrimination.

The question is where does the discrimination occur? I would argue that the discrimination is between married and non-married people. So we have to have a "necessary societal need" in order to allow people to get married in the first place.

The couple appealed the district court's decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. In a brief opinion issued on October 15, 1971, the state's highest court affirmed the trial court's dismissal. Based on the common usage of the term "marriage" and gender-specific references elsewhere in the same chapter, the Court held that the statutes prohibited marriage between persons of the same sex.[7] This restriction, the Court reasoned, did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage.

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

It appears that that "necessary societal need" is centered around procreation. Comparing the poverty rate for married vs. single parents it should be clear why this is a "necessary societal need".

Obviously if one extends the definition of marriage to non-consenting or mentally incompetent adults or minors too young to give informed consent that's a different story, but it's worth pointing out that the historic definition of marriage includes its share of those as well, and any discussion of traditional marriage needs to be with the underlying understanding that we're really talking about traditional marriage within the modern Judeo-Christian Western civilization.

It is not necessary to extend the definition of marriage to include minors, etc.

A 45 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl is not contrary to the definition of marriage. It is merely contrary to current decency.

 

[nehalem256]

The question "who should be allowed to marry" is pure bullshit, the question should always be "Who should be prevented from forming a marriage union and what is the compelling reason to prevent them from doing it?" If there isn't a compelling reason to prevent it then it should automatically be legal.

I see no compelling reason for gays or lesbians not to marry and no compelling reason to ban multiple partner marriages. Standard legislation should be applied to keep tax, insurance, inheritance and other issues reasonable and settled.

So by compelling reason I assume you mean something like causes harm to someone.

So using that idea there is no "compelling reason" to prevent someone from marrying his toaster as no one is harmed. ^_^

 

[actuarial]

Why only 2 consenting adults? Why can't 3 consenting adults get married?

This is a serious question. Why do gay marriage supporters continue to promote bigotry against the polyamorous? Invariably they trot out the same old lines about child abuse, because clearly anybody who supports polygamy wants to marry an 8 year old girl. Which is completely different than the old lines that homophobes used to use about gays wanting to molest little boys.

It's nice that you built the argument against polygamy to be so easy to tear down.

The reason I believe that gay marriage and polygamy are separate issues are strictly legal. The current laws easily handle gay marriage. They do not handle polygamy.

For example, which spouse(s) receive benefits under a pension or medical plan? Is there a limit to how many spouses collect SS spousal entitlements? Do they split a single entitlement or do they each get a full entitlement? Are all n spouses married to each other, or is it a single person with multiple marriages to individuals?

My biggest issue is what happens with marriage breakdown? How do you determine marital property? Is it one big pot, or is it separate pots for each marriage? What income is used to determine support?

 

[actuarial]

So by compelling reason I assume you mean something like causes harm to someone.

So using that idea there is no "compelling reason" to prevent someone from marrying his toaster as no one is harmed. ^_^

Marriage requires consent.

 

[monovillage]

So by compelling reason I assume you mean something like causes harm to someone.

So using that idea there is no "compelling reason" to prevent someone from marrying his toaster as no one is harmed. ^_^

Yes. It's a toaster, it's consent is a given.

 

[Gintaras]

I don't care who's getting married if I'm invited to a wedding with lots of vodka, caviar, raw oysters and other good food and nice women will be seated at the table on both sides....

As I don't care who's next Orginized Religion pope will be - gay, pedophile, black or white...
Actually, I think, one of jewish rabbies should be next pope in Vatican...

 

[BoberFett]

It's nice that you built the argument against polygamy to be so easy to tear down.

The reason I believe that gay marriage and polygamy are separate issues are strictly legal. The current laws easily handle gay marriage. They do not handle polygamy.

For example, which spouse(s) receive benefits under a pension or medical plan? Is there a limit to how many spouses collect SS spousal entitlements? Do they split a single entitlement or do they each get a full entitlement? Are all n spouses married to each other, or is it a single person with multiple marriages to individuals?

My biggest issue is what happens with marriage breakdown? How do you determine marital property? Is it one big pot, or is it separate pots for each marriage? What income is used to determine support?

Wow, I never thought of that. No business has ever had more than two owners. No inheritance has ever been split between heirs. I have no idea how the law would handle such insanity...

 

[nehalem256]

Marriage requires consent.

Marriage requires a man and a woman.

See how that works? Want to bet I can find more historical examples of marriage that did not involve consent than involve the same gender?