Govt Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]forlife wrote:

I specifically argued they would need to be parents, not just raise children. Orphanages raise children. Orphanages aren’t parents. And again, the point is that marriage is clearly defined. You may not like the definition, but is still a clear definition. So let’s be done with the “defining marriage out of existence” argument.[/quote]

You’d like to be done with it, but it ain’t so. Forget this issue with orphages - I am not concerned with that. Use your own definition of parents - and you’ve said that any family structure that raises kids (gay, straight, more than two parents - anything) should be eligible for marriage.

As such, marriage is not and cannot be “clearly defined”, because it is defined as any arrangement some “parents” can think of without limitation. It has been defined out of existence, because it has no parameters, and all relationships of parents are now “equal”. It doesn’t encourage monogamy, it doesn’t encourage the raising of kids by their biological parents - it serves none, repeat none, of the functions of marriage. None. It’s gone.

You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube, as much as you would like to. You are ok with marriage being essentially meaningless, because it doesn’t favor any parenting setup over another. That’s fine - it’s your theory, not mine. But you have to live with its logical conclusion, and if you don’t like it, maybe you should rethink your theory.

I disagree. Gay marriage benefits society in many of the same ways straight marriage benefits society. You’ve said marriage provides children of straight parents with security. It does the same for children of gay parents. If you disagree with this, please explain why.

You’re back to square one because you want to ignore the difficult applications of your radical theory. You can’t.

And, enough with the reset button. I have explained a thousand times why gay marriage doesn’t benefit society in the same (or even all that similar) ways as traditional marriage, primarily because of the procreative angle. Marriage serves to encourage parents responsible for bringing a child into the world to care for it, else bad things happen.

I’ve led you down the path to where your theory leads, and there isn’t much more to discuss. You and I actually agree where your path leads, where we differ is whether the consequences are bad. Your theory nullifies marriage and the very reason it was enacted in the first place. I’m not ok with that, and most people aren’t when they get educated as to the unintended consequences of experimentation with the institution.

[forlife]

It only defines marriage out of existence if it has no parameters. Even one parameter gives it definition. You’re arguing that because the definition is flexible on gender and number, that it loses any ability to define at all. But that clearly isn’t the case. From Wiki:

“Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.”

Note that the definition isn’t restricted by gender or number. But it is still a clear definition, and it excludes a vast number of other types of human relationships that wouldn’t be considered marriage. The definition includes several parameters, and as such it stands.

Furthermore, the definition is far from inconsequential. Improving the health and well being of children is only one significant benefit of marriage, and that benefit exists whether the parents are gay or straight.

It is a clear definition, with demonstrable benefits to society.

You’re correct that straight marriage benefits society. So does gay marriage. The two can coexist peacefully, as is the case in other countries and now even in some of our own states. There’s no compelling reason to insist on one over the other, unless you have other motives, like a moral compunction against same sex relationships.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]forlife wrote:

It only defines marriage out of existence if it has no parameters. Even one parameter gives it definition. You’re arguing that because the definition is flexible on gender and number, that it loses any ability to define at all. But that clearly isn’t the case. From Wiki:

“Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.”

Note that the definition isn’t restricted by gender or number. But it is still a clear definition, and it excludes a vast number of other types of human relationships that wouldn’t be considered marriage. The definition includes several parameters, and as such it stands.[/quote]

This is getting absurd. You’ve now gone full bore into being a marriage relativist (“if you can conceive of it, it’s marriage!”), and Wikipedia is the wellspring of your theory that, because it happens to describe “marriage” as it might be defined in other cultures (not restricted by our Western way), it must therefore be defined that way in our culture. Again, absurd.

As to the rest of your post, you are trending into your usual habit of just recycling your favored talking points. You seem to think when you reach an impasse, you simply hit “reset” and start your bromides over again. It isn’t headed anywhere original or interesting, so I’m done.

[forlife]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

It only defines marriage out of existence if it has no parameters. Even one parameter gives it definition. You’re arguing that because the definition is flexible on gender and number, that it loses any ability to define at all. But that clearly isn’t the case. From Wiki:

“Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.”

Note that the definition isn’t restricted by gender or number. But it is still a clear definition, and it excludes a vast number of other types of human relationships that wouldn’t be considered marriage. The definition includes several parameters, and as such it stands.[/quote]

This is getting absurd. You’ve now gone full bore into being a marriage relativist (“if you can conceive of it, it’s marriage!”), and Wikipedia is the wellspring of your theory that, because it happens to describe “marriage” as it might be defined in other cultures (not restricted by our Western way), it must therefore be defined that way in our culture. Again, absurd.

As to the rest of your post, you are trending into your usual habit of just recycling your favored talking points. You seem to think when you reach an impasse, you simply hit “reset” and start your bromides over again. It isn’t headed anywhere original or interesting, so I’m done.[/quote]

So a cross-cultural definition of marriage effectively “defines marriage out of existence”? I’m not asking you to agree with the definition. I’m asking for an acknowledgment that it is, in fact, a meaningful definition. You’re trying to assault the definition by claiming it allows any relationship under the sun, but clearly it qualitatively excludes a large number of relationships from being called a marriage. It simply isn’t accurate to claim that the definition makes marriage meaningless.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]forlife wrote:

So a cross-cultural definition of marriage effectively “defines marriage out of existence”?[/quote]

Yep, if we presume these cross-cultural definitions to be valid.

I’m asking for an acknowledgment that it is, in fact, a meaningful definition. You’re trying to assault the definition by claiming it allows any relationship under the sun, but clearly it qualitatively excludes a large number of relationships from being called a marriage. It simply isn’t accurate to claim that the definition makes marriage meaningless.

Again, this is getting silly. Neither Wikipedia nor a sociological survey defines marriage for our society - when I say “define”, I don’t mean for discussion purposes, I mean to to “define” as in “assign meaning to” in our own culture.

Plenty of cultures “define” marriage to include polygamy - we do not. And just because they happen to define marriage that way, it has no bearing on whether we should or shouldn’t, i.e., we are not obligated to accept their definition of marriage for our society (and we don’t).

You have talked yourself into a trap, and you know it. Now, you are trying to find your way out, and you have nowhere to go. If “marriage” simply means “whatever consenting adult relationship I want to define it as”, the definition of “marriage” is effectively nullified, because I can change it a whim. I can always add another “parent” of any gender, and come up with a new form of marriage.

And, none of these new “definitions” do anything to promote the purpose that marriage serves in society.

I get it - you answered my questions honestly and got led into a place rhetorically and logically you didn’t mean to go, and now you are trying to work your way out of it. Won’t happen, Wikipedia or not. You’ve endorsed a definition of “marriage” that can’t stand. You don’t think that leads to a bad place, I do. It’s over.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok, Chris, explain how homosexuality is “unnatural”, being as it has appeared in every major (and minor)society in history. Or are you confusing “unnatural” with “unaccepted”?[/quote]

Did I say appeared? If I did I misspoke.[/quote]

Nope, I did. Go ahead and explain exactly how homoexuality is unnatural, please.[/quote]

Do you know anything about Natural Law?[/quote]

Do you? LOL.

Inb4 BC spouts off Christian natural law while ignoring all other schools of thought on the subject.

Idiot.[/quote]

Um…I was referring to that which the U.S. Constitution and all 50 state constitutions are based on and in general Natural Law…since you know, we are talking about the United States. So, yes classical natural law.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok, Chris, explain how homosexuality is “unnatural”, being as it has appeared in every major (and minor)society in history. Or are you confusing “unnatural” with “unaccepted”?[/quote]

Did I say appeared? If I did I misspoke.[/quote]

Nope, I did. Go ahead and explain exactly how homoexuality is unnatural, please.[/quote]

Do you know anything about Natural Law?[/quote]

Do you know how to answer a question?[/quote]

I’m not going to go answer a question if the basis of my answer is thrown out on the basis that positivism is the current trend of law making/following.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

So a cross-cultural definition of marriage effectively “defines marriage out of existence”?[/quote]

Yep, if we presume these cross-cultural definitions to be valid.

I’m asking for an acknowledgment that it is, in fact, a meaningful definition. You’re trying to assault the definition by claiming it allows any relationship under the sun, but clearly it qualitatively excludes a large number of relationships from being called a marriage. It simply isn’t accurate to claim that the definition makes marriage meaningless.

Again, this is getting silly. Neither Wikipedia nor a sociological survey defines marriage for our society - when I say “define”, I don’t mean for discussion purposes, I mean to to “define” as in “assign meaning to” in our own culture.

Plenty of cultures “define” marriage to include polygamy - we do not. And just because they happen to define marriage that way, it has no bearing on whether we should or shouldn’t, i.e., we are not obligated to accept their definition of marriage for our society (and we don’t).

You have talked yourself into a trap, and you know it. Now, you are trying to find your way out, and you have nowhere to go. If “marriage” simply means “whatever consenting adult relationship I want to define it as”, the definition of “marriage” is effectively nullified, because I can change it a whim. I can always add another “parent” of any gender, and come up with a new form of marriage.

And, none of these new “definitions” do anything to promote the purpose that marriage serves in society.

I get it - you answered my questions honestly and got led into a place rhetorically and logically you didn’t mean to go, and now you are trying to work your way out of it. Won’t happen, Wikipedia or not. You’ve endorsed a definition of “marriage” that can’t stand. You don’t think that leads to a bad place, I do. It’s over. [/quote]

TB, you keep ignoring the fact that, even in cultures that define marriage to include polygamy, marriage still has a definition. People do not, in practice, “redefine it any way they please for any reason at any time”. Yet the crux of your entire argument is that it would happen.

Isn’t there a name for the fallacy where you make a prediction and, failing to see it come true, continue to make the same prediction and claim it’s just not been long enough?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

TB, you keep ignoring the fact that, even in cultures that define marriage to include polygamy, marriage still has a definition. People do not, in practice, “redefine it any way they please for any reason at any time”. Yet the crux of your entire argument is that it would happen.[/quote]

Where to begin? Under Forlife’s theory - not other culture’s - people can define marriage any way they please. I never said other cultures do this - I said Forlife’s theory provides this.

In some other cultures, “marriage” is defined to include polygamy, but not gay marriage. Those cultures do not ascribe to the theory Forlife adheres to, and I never said they did. You are confused.

Isn’t there a name for the fallacy where you make a prediction and, failing to see it come true, continue to make the same prediction and claim it’s just not been long enough?

Uh, well, you suffer from a definitional error - my prediction hasn’t failed to come true, so whatever point you were trying to make is a moot one.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

TB, you keep ignoring the fact that, even in cultures that define marriage to include polygamy, marriage still has a definition. People do not, in practice, “redefine it any way they please for any reason at any time”. Yet the crux of your entire argument is that it would happen.[/quote]

Where to begin? Under Forlife’s theory - not other culture’s - people can define marriage any way they please. I never said other cultures do this - I said Forlife’s theory provides this.

In some other cultures, “marriage” is defined to include polygamy, but not gay marriage. Those cultures do not ascribe to the theory Forlife adheres to, and I never said they did. You are confused.

Isn’t there a name for the fallacy where you make a prediction and, failing to see it come true, continue to make the same prediction and claim it’s just not been long enough?

Uh, well, you suffer from a definitional error - my prediction hasn’t failed to come true, so whatever point you were trying to make is a moot one.[/quote]

Your argument is “If we expand the definition to include homosexuals, we have to expand it to include anybody in any arrangement for any reason at any time.” Those other cultures include polygamy, yet this “redefined out of existence” thing hasn’t happened there.

And, yes, your prediction, that marriage will have no definition and society will act accordingly, has failed to come true.

[forlife]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

So a cross-cultural definition of marriage effectively “defines marriage out of existence”?[/quote]

Yep, if we presume these cross-cultural definitions to be valid.

I’m asking for an acknowledgment that it is, in fact, a meaningful definition. You’re trying to assault the definition by claiming it allows any relationship under the sun, but clearly it qualitatively excludes a large number of relationships from being called a marriage. It simply isn’t accurate to claim that the definition makes marriage meaningless.

Again, this is getting silly. Neither Wikipedia nor a sociological survey defines marriage for our society - when I say “define”, I don’t mean for discussion purposes, I mean to to “define” as in “assign meaning to” in our own culture.

Plenty of cultures “define” marriage to include polygamy - we do not. And just because they happen to define marriage that way, it has no bearing on whether we should or shouldn’t, i.e., we are not obligated to accept their definition of marriage for our society (and we don’t).

You have talked yourself into a trap, and you know it. Now, you are trying to find your way out, and you have nowhere to go. If “marriage” simply means “whatever consenting adult relationship I want to define it as”, the definition of “marriage” is effectively nullified, because I can change it a whim. I can always add another “parent” of any gender, and come up with a new form of marriage.

And, none of these new “definitions” do anything to promote the purpose that marriage serves in society.

I get it - you answered my questions honestly and got led into a place rhetorically and logically you didn’t mean to go, and now you are trying to work your way out of it. Won’t happen, Wikipedia or not. You’ve endorsed a definition of “marriage” that can’t stand. You don’t think that leads to a bad place, I do. It’s over. [/quote]

Alternate definitions <> No definitions

Just because the general definition of marriage allows for variations in gender and number doesn’t imply it allows everything. There are still clear exclusive parameters in the definition:

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

Nobody said marriage includes “whatever consenting adult relationship I define it as”. I’m unaware of any culture that would define marriage in this way.

Note that I’m not suggesting you accept this general definition of marriage. You’re free to restrict your definition to heterosexual unions if that makes sense to you. However, please stop implying that the general definition has no parameters at all. It does have clear parameters. You may not agree with those parameters, but that doesn’t imply it defines marriage out of existence. More accurately, it is a different definition of marriage than you feel comfortable embracing.

[Sloth]

Um, you can’t allow “cross-cultural” theory (makes me want to vomit saying that) to “set” (impossible, since cultures spring up and vanish on micro and macro scales) parameters for marriage…That would be BIGOTED! Dum, dee, dum, durr! And that’s just not allowed! Marriage isn’t about, like, parameters, know what I’m I saying? It’s about INDIVIDUAL rights, dontcha know?

Congrats, you’ll probably succeed in driving the final nail in marriage’s coffin, with a theory that still even excludes the imaginative dealings of consenting adults, based on some obscure and fluid reference to the opinion of an ever-changing, ever selfish, ever hipster-activist predisposed liberal tarpit of chaotic thought.

[forlife]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Um, you can’t allow “cross-cultural” theory (makes me want to vomit saying that) to “set” (impossible, since cultures spring up and vanish on micro and macro scales) parameters for marriage…That would be BIGOTED! Dum, dee, dum, durr! And that’s just not allowed! Marriage isn’t about, like, parameters, know what I’m I saying? It’s about INDIVIDUAL rights, dontcha know?

Congrats, you’ll probably succeed in driving the final nail in marriage’s coffin, with a theory that still even excludes the imaginative dealings of consenting adults, based on some obscure and fluid reference to the opinion of an ever-changing, ever selfish, ever hipster-activist predisposed liberal tarpit of chaotic thought.

[/quote]

Heh…props on the multi-adjective.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Um, you can’t allow “cross-cultural” theory (makes me want to vomit saying that) to “set” (impossible, since cultures spring up and vanish on micro and macro scales) parameters for marriage…That would be BIGOTED! Dum, dee, dum, durr! And that’s just not allowed! Marriage isn’t about, like, parameters, know what I’m I saying? It’s about INDIVIDUAL rights, dontcha know?

Congrats, you’ll probably succeed in driving the final nail in marriage’s coffin, with a theory that still even excludes the imaginative dealings of consenting adults, based on some obscure and fluid reference to the opinion of an ever-changing, ever selfish, ever hipster-activist predisposed liberal tarpit of chaotic thought.

[/quote]

Nah man, BIGOTED is claiming allowing homosexuals to marry would destroy marriage - despite zero evidence in places where gay marriage has been legal for, uh, like, a decade, man.

[Sloth]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Um, you can’t allow “cross-cultural” theory (makes me want to vomit saying that) to “set” (impossible, since cultures spring up and vanish on micro and macro scales) parameters for marriage…That would be BIGOTED! Dum, dee, dum, durr! And that’s just not allowed! Marriage isn’t about, like, parameters, know what I’m I saying? It’s about INDIVIDUAL rights, dontcha know?

Congrats, you’ll probably succeed in driving the final nail in marriage’s coffin, with a theory that still even excludes the imaginative dealings of consenting adults, based on some obscure and fluid reference to the opinion of an ever-changing, ever selfish, ever hipster-activist predisposed liberal tarpit of chaotic thought.

[/quote]

Nah man, BIGOTED is claiming allowing homosexuals to marry would destroy marriage - despite zero evidence in places where gay marriage has been legal for, uh, like, a decade, man.[/quote]

Destroying? It was already destroyed. Homosexual marriage is simply a clear sign (along with divorce rates, out-of-wedlock rates, cohabitation) of it’s destruction. But, it particularly will serve as a one-way door, barring the way back to salvaging marriage’s scrap for rebuilding.

Stick a fork in the West, we’re done. We’re a graying, unanchored, bored, and decadent people. Clamoring for our “individual rights.” Yet, robbing a shrinking pool of tomorrow’s youth in order to “take care of me in the crib, hospital and the nursing home.”

This monoculture (cross-cultural, lol) of whiny and air-headed feel-gooders embarrasses the
heck out of me.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Your argument is “If we expand the definition to include homosexuals, we have to expand it to include anybody in any arrangement for any reason at any time.” Those other cultures include polygamy, yet this “redefined out of existence” thing hasn’t happened there.[/quote]

My argument is "Your argument is “If we expand the definition to include homosexuals, we have to expand it to include anybody in any arrangement for any reason at any time” based on Forlife’s theory, not what other cultures do or don’t do. Read the thread.

The only reason why marriage in other cultures has been raised is because Forlife noted that there are cross-cultural definitions of marriage. Under Forlife’s theory, these other versions of marriage have to be afforded legitimacy in our culture because Forlife himself said so under his principle.

I never said the fact that other cultures have polygamy that marriage will be “defined out of existence” - and, in fact, I believe the opposite. These cultures are not relativist on the issue - they think polygamy is right and everything else is wrong - so other forms of marriage don’t creep into the discussion. But Forlife is relativist on the issue, and his pirnciple has to be extended to other forms of marriage, by his own admission.

Read the thread.

And, yes, your prediction, that marriage will have no definition and society will act accordingly, has failed to come true.

No, it hasn’t, because the new New hasn’t been around for very long, and the erosion takes time. Just because it didn’t happen overnight doesn’t it mean it isn’t going to happen. Take as an example the ravaging effects on marriage of the libertinism of the 1960s and the assault on marriage then. It bore fruit and has severely harmed marriage, but it wasn’t overnight - and, in fact, we are just now waking up to all the awful things we’ve done through that radical social change.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]forlife wrote:

Alternate definitions <> No definitions

Just because the general definition of marriage allows for variations in gender and number doesn’t imply it allows everything. There are still clear exclusive parameters in the definition:

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

Nobody said marriage includes “whatever consenting adult relationship I define it as”. I’m unaware of any culture that would define marriage in this way. [/quote]

You’ve already admitted so, stop trying to rescue yourself from your own hanging. As long as a person can claim that they have an arrangement that raises children, by your own admission, it is eligible for marriage. Thus, there is no parameter defining marriage that makes any sense for society - it doesn’t serve any purpose when people get to modify the parameters at will.

Enough, Forlife. Trying to torture the word “definition” till it screams isn’t going to save you. As I said earlier, when I say “define”, I mean “assign meaning in our culture”. Some culrtures “define” marriage to include polygamy - we do not. Thus, our definition means something other than merely for discussion purposes.

Under your theory, our version of marriage is no longer defined in any meaningful way in our society, because marriage is whatever someone wants it to be. Period.

Note that I’m not suggesting you accept this general definition of marriage. You’re free to restrict your definition to heterosexual unions if that makes sense to you. However, please stop implying that the general definition has no parameters at all. It does have clear parameters. You may not agree with those parameters, but that doesn’t imply it defines marriage out of existence. More accurately, it is a different definition of marriage than you feel comfortable embracing.

No, it wouldn’t have clear parameters. Stop making this foolish argument. I would always be able to add one more person of any gender to any “marriage” relationship and have it be as equal as any other “marriage” out there.

Marriage exists to privilege certain relationships over others for the social benefits. Your theory does the opposite - it de-privileges all relationships and equalizes them. Thus, the entire point of marriage simply ceases to exist.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Your argument is “If we expand the definition to include homosexuals, we have to expand it to include anybody in any arrangement for any reason at any time.” Those other cultures include polygamy, yet this “redefined out of existence” thing hasn’t happened there.[/quote]

My argument is "Your argument is “If we expand the definition to include homosexuals, we have to expand it to include anybody in any arrangement for any reason at any time” based on Forlife’s theory, not what other cultures do or don’t do. Read the thread.

The only reason why marriage in other cultures has been raised is because Forlife noted that there are cross-cultural definitions of marriage. Under Forlife’s theory, these other versions of marriage have to be afforded legitimacy in our culture because Forlife himself said so under his principle.

I never said the fact that other cultures have polygamy that marriage will be “defined out of existence” - and, in fact, I believe the opposite. These cultures are not relativist on the issue - they think polygamy is right and everything else is wrong - so other forms of marriage don’t creep into the discussion. But Forlife is relativist on the issue, and his pirnciple has to be extended to other forms of marriage, by his own admission.

Read the thread.

And, yes, your prediction, that marriage will have no definition and society will act accordingly, has failed to come true.

No, it hasn’t, because the new New hasn’t been around for very long, and the erosion takes time. Just because it didn’t happen overnight doesn’t it mean it isn’t going to happen. Take as an example the ravaging effects on marriage of the libertinism of the 1960s and the assault on marriage then. It bore fruit and has severely harmed marriage, but it wasn’t overnight - and, in fact, we are just now waking up to all the awful things we’ve done through that radical social change.[/quote]

Why has there not been a clamoring for incestous/“just because we feel like it”/20 women on facebook marriage in countries that allow gay marriage (and even polygamy)?

How long do you think it will take to actually get to the point you keep warning about?

[forlife]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Alternate definitions <> No definitions

Just because the general definition of marriage allows for variations in gender and number doesn’t imply it allows everything. There are still clear exclusive parameters in the definition:

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

Nobody said marriage includes “whatever consenting adult relationship I define it as”. I’m unaware of any culture that would define marriage in this way. [/quote]

You’ve already admitted so, stop trying to rescue yourself from your own hanging. As long as a person can claim that they have an arrangement that raises children, by your own admission, it is eligible for marriage. Thus, there is no parameter defining marriage that makes any sense for society - it doesn’t serve any purpose when people get to modify the parameters at will.

Enough, Forlife. Trying to torture the word “definition” till it screams isn’t going to save you. As I said earlier, when I say “define”, I mean “assign meaning in our culture”. Some culrtures “define” marriage to include polygamy - we do not. Thus, our definition means something other than merely for discussion purposes.

Under your theory, our version of marriage is no longer defined in any meaningful way in our society, because marriage is whatever someone wants it to be. Period.

Note that I’m not suggesting you accept this general definition of marriage. You’re free to restrict your definition to heterosexual unions if that makes sense to you. However, please stop implying that the general definition has no parameters at all. It does have clear parameters. You may not agree with those parameters, but that doesn’t imply it defines marriage out of existence. More accurately, it is a different definition of marriage than you feel comfortable embracing.

No, it wouldn’t have clear parameters. Stop making this foolish argument. I would always be able to add one more person of any gender to any “marriage” relationship and have it be as equal as any other “marriage” out there.

Marriage exists to privilege certain relationships over others for the social benefits. Your theory does the opposite - it de-privileges all relationships and equalizes them. Thus, the entire point of marriage simply ceases to exist.
[/quote]

Your last couple of posts are bordering on the personal, so just a polite request to keep it focused on the topic. I’ve been forthcoming with you throughout this discussion, and will continue to do so. I saw where you were going with your questions, and I replied honestly. I’m here for a constructive discussion, so please let’s not go there.

We were discussing the raising of children as a benefit of both straight and gay marriage. I didn’t restrict my definition of marriage to the raising of children, nor am I doing so now. My argument has not been that raising children is the only benefit of marriage. We were only discussing it in the context of your standard that marriage exists primarily to benefit children with heterosexual parents. I brought it up to make the point that many of those same benefits accrue to children with gay parents. I agree with the general definition of marriage from Wiki, else I wouldn’t have posted it.

Yes, the general definition allows for same gender and polygamous relationships to be considered marriage. That makes sense, when you consider that polygamous marriages and gay marriages exist and are legally recognized in many parts of the world.

But that doesn’t mean the definition can be twisted to include an adult marrying a child, or a man marrying his goat, or two business partners, or a corporate merger, or my grandma’s card club. It still provides very clear parameters on what is and what is not considered a marriage. It does not, as you contend, allow any relationship to be considered a marriage.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Why has there not been a clamoring for incestous/“just because we feel like it”/20 women on facebook marriage in countries that allow gay marriage (and even polygamy)?[/quote]

Not sure if there is a big incest lobby, but then again, I never included incest.

Others are using gay marriage to open up discussion as to other arrangements. Basic Google hit:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28776588/

How long do you think it will take to actually get to the point you keep warning about?

Well, in many ways, we are already there to a certain extent, being that “the point” is really the point when traditional marriage has been weakened. This agenda for “new” marriages is merely gasoline on an existing flame.