What's new
By:

What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?

One Brow said:
It's relevant because it means we can't count on the current opinion of state legislators to accurately assess fundamental civil liberties, such as choosing who to marry.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. So the concept of civil liberties and state policies are fluid, and the battle wages on....
 
Amazing how the two sides of this argument are remarkably similar to a debate about faith in God. One side is making somewhat of a 'faith' stance on the equality topic, whereas the opposing side is making it a completely logical 'prove it' type of stance.
 
Catchall said:
You've presented a logical fallacy here. Traditional marriage is about baby making and establishing stable families whether married couples choose to make babies or not. I understand you want to change how marriage has historically been defined.

Let me ask you: what does homosexuality have to do with marriage at all? If you want to live with someone of the same sex, go ahead. It's your choice. Why do you need your state to call it a marriage?
Click to expand...

Marriage defined:

https://books.google.com/books?id=A...ge&q=marriage anthropology definition&f=false

A culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. Such marriage rights and obligations most often include, but are not limited to, sex, labor, property, childrearing, exchange, and status.
 
Catchall said:
Just because a law is passed doesn't mean it's inappropriate or oppressive. The question on the table is the degree to which homosexuality should be recognized by states. It's not really about basic human rights because gay people's rights are already protected under civil union. This is really about how homosexuality should be acknowledged and labeled by the state. Gay people are asking for more validation and acceptance. Otherwise, they wouldn't be raising the issue in message boards like this one.

If same-sex couples want to live together, they can just go ahead. They're doing it anyway.
Click to expand...

They are looking for validation equal to that of others.

They're doing it anyway without the benefits that state sanctioned married couples enjoy. Again. Equality.
 
One Brow said:
According to whom?

There is no unique historical definition of marriage. Wife-selling was an English custom until 100 years ago. There's been polygamy, polyandry, contractual (temporary marriages), marriages to soldiers capturing your village, rape marriage, brother-in-law marriage, etc.

There are several hundred legal benefits to being married.
Click to expand...

...So you're saying that polygamy, polyandry....brother in-law marriages are immoral practices that have since been stamped out of marriage law. Okay. Great.

And you're saying that homosexuality is what.....another immoral practice that should be kept out of marriage law? Or, you're saying that you think homosexuality is a moral, ethical practice that has been overlooked and should be added to marriage law?

We all understand that civil liberties and laws are malleable. That goes without saying. The question is whether this particular practice falls into the moral or immoral category.

Yet, some others in this thread are saying that states shouldn't make moral judgments to begin with, as though the states have no place making such moral judgments. They want the states to be more permissive in their definition of marriage and not make moral judgments. Throw moral judgment out the window, and perhaps we'll bring back polygamy, polyandry (I had to look that one up), and incestuous relationships in order to let every man, woman and child be entitled to enjoy their cravings with full benefits from the state.

Currently and historically, virtually all states have defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. Of course, this legal definition can be revisited and amended. I just don't think most states will do it.
 
PKM said:
Amazing how the two sides of this argument are remarkably similar to a debate about faith in God. One side is making somewhat of a 'faith' stance on the equality topic, whereas the opposing side is making it a completely logical 'prove it' type of stance.
Click to expand...

I think you can leave religion out of it. Most agnostics and athiests I know oppose same-sex marriage on moral grounds.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Marriage defined:

https://books.google.com/books?id=A...ge&q=marriage anthropology definition&f=false

A culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. Such marriage rights and obligations most often include, but are not limited to, sex, labor, property, childrearing, exchange, and status.
Click to expand...

Well, if that anthropology book's definition gets codified in marriage law, then you've got no problem. I didn't realize that a marriage could involve more than two people. Interesting.
 
Catchall said:
Currently and historically, virtually all states have defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. Of course, this legal definition can be revisited and amended. I just don't think most states will do it.
Click to expand...

Historically, polygamy has been just as, if not more prominent than monogamy.
 
Catchall said:
Well, if that anthropology book's definition gets codified in marriage law, then you've got no problem. I didn't realize that a marriage could involve more than two people. Interesting.
Click to expand...

That definition of marriage is derived from what marriage has ACTUALLY been over the course of history, not what you may imply was made up. You didn't realize marriage could involve more than two people? Have you never read a history book?
 
Darkwing Duck said:
That definition of marriage is derived from what marriage has ACTUALLY been over the course of history, not what you may imply was made up. You didn't realize marriage could involve more than two people? Have you never read a history book?
Click to expand...

I'm interested in states' definition of marriage, and that's what we're discussing. I'm not particularly interested in whether the Emperor of Ming Dynasty China had a harem.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Earth.
Click to expand...

I've met one allegedly polygamist family in my entire life. They were from the Heber Valley.
Out of curiosity, if polygamy has really been predominant over monogamy, as you say, do you know if any of those polygamists have same-sex spouses?
If so, what did the state say about that?
 
Catchall said:
I've met one allegedly polygamist family in my entire life. They were from the Heber Valley.
Out of curiosity, if polygamy has really been predominant over monogamy, as you say, do you know if any of those polygamists have same-sex spouses?
If so, what did the state say about that?
Click to expand...

I know about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the people that have been married in human history. Slightly higher percentage if you exclude the deceased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top