[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What is the purpose of marriage as a legal institution?
[/quote]
To incetivize the ordering of the smallest unit capable of producing and raising it’s ownspring. Or, are you asking “why should we have any state recognized marriage?”
Still waiting on the definition of the new non-discriminatory state recognized marriage.[/quote]
…the state shall not discriminate against people who seek a state recognized marriage IF that state recognized marriage is wanted by a [arbitrary] percentage of the population…
[/quote]
Have no idea what that means. Are you suggesting discrimation is defined solely by a democratic vote?[/quote]
…it could be what non-discriminatory state recognized marriages are concerned…
[/quote]
For some reason I’m not following what you’re saying. It could just be me, but I dunno.
I like the idea of no federal/state involvement in marriage . . . eevrything legal and financial can still be completed (joint ownership/named beneficiary, etc) and as far as visitation rights, in this tech driven day and age, certianly we could generate a visitation list or some other device/program to allow for that as well.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What is the purpose of marriage as a legal institution?
[/quote]
To incetivize the ordering of the smallest unit capable of producing and raising it’s ownspring. Or, are you asking “why should we have any state recognized marriage?”
Still waiting on the definition of the new non-discriminatory state recognized marriage.[/quote]
…the state shall not discriminate against people who seek a state recognized marriage IF that state recognized marriage is wanted by a [arbitrary] percentage of the population…
[/quote]
Have no idea what that means. Are you suggesting discrimation is defined solely by a democratic vote?[/quote]
…it could be what non-discriminatory state recognized marriages are concerned…
[/quote]
But if a, b, and c type marriage gets passed by vote but x, y, and z type don’t get passed, then wouldn’t x, y, and z be discriminated against?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What is the purpose of marriage as a legal institution?
[/quote]
To incetivize the ordering of the smallest unit capable of producing and raising it’s ownspring. Or, are you asking “why should we have any state recognized marriage?”
Still waiting on the definition of the new non-discriminatory state recognized marriage.[/quote]
…the state shall not discriminate against people who seek a state recognized marriage IF that state recognized marriage is wanted by a [arbitrary] percentage of the population…
[/quote]
Have no idea what that means. Are you suggesting discrimation is defined solely by a democratic vote?[/quote]
…it could be what non-discriminatory state recognized marriages are concerned…
[/quote]
But if a, b, and c type marriage gets passed by vote but x, y, and z type don’t get passed, then wouldn’t x, y, and z be discriminated against?[/quote]
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What is the purpose of marriage as a legal institution?
[/quote]
To incetivize the ordering of the smallest unit capable of producing and raising it’s ownspring. Or, are you asking “why should we have any state recognized marriage?”
Still waiting on the definition of the new non-discriminatory state recognized marriage.[/quote]
…the state shall not discriminate against people who seek a state recognized marriage IF that state recognized marriage is wanted by a [arbitrary] percentage of the population…
[/quote]
Have no idea what that means. Are you suggesting discrimation is defined solely by a democratic vote?[/quote]
…it could be what non-discriminatory state recognized marriages are concerned…
[/quote]
But if a, b, and c type marriage gets passed by vote but x, y, and z type don’t get passed, then wouldn’t x, y, and z be discriminated against?[/quote]
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I like the idea of no federal/state involvement in marriage . . . eevrything legal and financial can still be completed (joint ownership/named beneficiary, etc) and as far as visitation rights, in this tech driven day and age, certianly we could generate a visitation list or some other device/program to allow for that as well.[/quote]
Personally I’m all for state recognized marriage. I can face the discrimination charges with a “so?” Not a bit of guilt. When one realizes that marriage would be defined right out of existence in order to meet some non-discriminatory standard, one realizes that not all discrimination is wrong.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I like the idea of no federal/state involvement in marriage . . . eevrything legal and financial can still be completed (joint ownership/named beneficiary, etc) and as far as visitation rights, in this tech driven day and age, certianly we could generate a visitation list or some other device/program to allow for that as well.[/quote]
Personally I’m all for state recognized marriage. I can face the discrimination charges with a “so?” Not a bit of guilt. When one realizes that marriage would be defined right out of existence in order to meet some non-discriminatory standard, one realizes that not all discrimination is wrong.[/quote]
I was just speaking from a limited government perspective without comment on the social/religious aspects - sorry, just a mental exploration of the idea.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I like the idea of no federal/state involvement in marriage . . . eevrything legal and financial can still be completed (joint ownership/named beneficiary, etc) and as far as visitation rights, in this tech driven day and age, certianly we could generate a visitation list or some other device/program to allow for that as well.[/quote]
Personally I’m all for state recognized marriage. I can face the discrimination charges with a “so?” Not a bit of guilt. When one realizes that marriage would be defined right out of existence in order to meet some non-discriminatory standard, one realizes that not all discrimination is wrong.[/quote]
Exactly what about it are “for”? Can you elaborate? Other than the legal benefits you may gain, what about the state recognition is important?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I like the idea of no federal/state involvement in marriage . . . eevrything legal and financial can still be completed (joint ownership/named beneficiary, etc) and as far as visitation rights, in this tech driven day and age, certianly we could generate a visitation list or some other device/program to allow for that as well.[/quote]
Personally I’m all for state recognized marriage. I can face the discrimination charges with a “so?” Not a bit of guilt. When one realizes that marriage would be defined right out of existence in order to meet some non-discriminatory standard, one realizes that not all discrimination is wrong.[/quote]
Exactly what about it are “for”? Can you elaborate? Other than the legal benefits you may gain, what about the state recognition is important?[/quote]
Being set upon a pedestal. The recognition that this institution is so important to the orderly propagation and prosperity of our future citizenry that we hold it in awe privately and publically. The very exclusiveness of it’s status defines the institution we desire our citizens to aspire to.
State-recognition should never be seen as a recognition of individual rights. Indeed, the consideration of the individual is placed under greater considerations. The family, the community, the state, the nation. Marriage is not an institution for expressing individual rights/autonomy. There’s body piercing, for that.
Still waiting on my non-discriminating definition for state recogized marriage!
I’ll cheat a bit and suggest that this challenge steers the topic into “We should do away with all state-recognized marriage!” Those who were pro-gay state marriage will become anti-state marriage, because they can’t define a non-discriminatory marriage the state could recognize.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Still waiting on my non-discriminating definition for state recogized marriage!
I’ll cheat a bit and suggest that this challenge steers the topic into “We should do away with all state-recognized marriage!” Those who were pro-gay state marriage will become anti-state marriage, because they can’t define a non-discriminatory marriage the state could recognize. [/quote]
I agree, that there can not be a non-discriminating definition for state recognized marriage.
State recognized marriage is a legal union between one human and another human. The idea of 3 or 4 humans marrying each other is rediculous in my opinion. Also the idea of mammal on mammal marriage is ridculous. To me it is for certain rights and benefits, ie if you are a woman and stay home with the kids, and the man works, then the woman has rights to a percentage of the assets and money going forward after a divorce. Same thing with homosexual marriages. Normally in a man homosexual relationship both work, but one usually makes more than the other, but they live together, so the joint assets are to be divided equally.
State marriages are a financial contract. A religious marriage is of the heart and soul. There is more to marriage than most people would beleive. The Bible says that man and woman becomes one flesh. By having a divorce the flesh is torn apart. Try tearing your arm off and living with out it. State says you can get a divorce for any reason. God says only for adultery.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is three some punishment if gays are declared husband/husband by Joe the gay bartender? What am I missing? I mean, I seen gays introduce the other as “my husband.” They didn’t even look worried that a police raid would soon show, or something.[/quote]
It’s those pesky federal things like hospital visitation and child custody that all come packaged up all tidy like.
But you already knew that.[/quote]
This.[/quote]
Check out my followups. It basically leads to a challenge to everyone on this thread. If state-recognized marriage can’t discriminate against consenting adults and their lifestyles, please provide a definition of non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Here’s why noone will attempt to do it…State-recognized marriage recognizes a private human arrangment to the exclusion of others! So in your new non-discriminatory state-recognized marriage, you can’t use parameters such as number of partners, gender of parnters, sexual orientation, prefered living arangements, or even consider if the relationship is of a sexual nature (that’s their business). Heck, you’d have to support 20 single-mothers forming a marriage arrangement over the internet! If you don’t you’re just as much of a bigot as me. If you do, well, then it brings out into the open what’s really going on here.
For now, I’ll await the new discrimination free state-recognized ‘marriage.’ Please, anyone, feel free to take a shot. In fact, I’d say that this is where the debate should start.[/quote]
There are many places around the world that have allowed gay marriage and avoided these problems.
[/quote]
No responses to this point. Funny, yes? When the slippery slope doesnt happen, the bigots cant seem to see.
There are many places around the world that have allowed gay marriage and avoided these problems.
[/quote]
Since my post was about defining a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage, I can only assume you mean that “many places around the world” have non-discriminatory marriage. So I assume these places recognize any arrangment of number, gender, and living arrangment. Nor do they take into consideration the sexual/non-sexual nature of the relationship(s). As I said earlier, marriage could be a couple dozen single-mothers forming a network through facebook. Is something like that what you meant?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I hardly see how something that hurts no one and takes place between one or more consenting adults could possibly be considered in any way shape or form, evil.
If you disagree, you’re going to have to explain your system of morality to me, and prove that it isn’t filled with gaping holes the size of Jupiter.
I really don’t care if you hate gay people, so long as your consistent and hate everyone else having sex too.[/quote]
Religiously sex is only good within the confines of a sound traditional marraige. More specifically, “becoming one” is supposed to entail the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual. I would say it’s valid to think all of those can’t happen in a homosexual relationship.
Hurting no-one else in no way ties into what I consider good or bad. I think suicide is wrong too.[/quote]
So basically you hate everyone having sex that isn’t doing so for the purposes of pro-creation. I can dig it. That’s consistent.
So long as you’re not ok with heteros having premarital sex but not ok with homos.
There are many places around the world that have allowed gay marriage and avoided these problems.
[/quote]
Since my post was about defining a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage, I can only assume you mean that “many places around the world” have non-discriminatory marriage. So I assume these places recognize any arrangment of number, gender, and living arrangment. Nor do they take into consideration the sexual/non-sexual nature of the relationship(s). As I said earlier, marriage could be a couple dozen single-mothers forming a network through facebook. Is something like that what you meant?[/quote]
No, he means that many places have same sex marriage and the issue of multiple person marriages, or person-object, or person-animal marriage hasn’t been a problem, at all.
Sloth, why don’t you just admit that you’re playing the slippery slope game because you want to keep the status quo which puts heterosexuals on a pedestal above homosexuals? It would only be fair.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I hardly see how something that hurts no one and takes place between one or more consenting adults could possibly be considered in any way shape or form, evil.
If you disagree, you’re going to have to explain your system of morality to me, and prove that it isn’t filled with gaping holes the size of Jupiter.
I really don’t care if you hate gay people, so long as your consistent and hate everyone else having sex too.[/quote]
Religiously sex is only good within the confines of a sound traditional marraige. More specifically, “becoming one” is supposed to entail the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual. I would say it’s valid to think all of those can’t happen in a homosexual relationship.
Hurting no-one else in no way ties into what I consider good or bad. I think suicide is wrong too.[/quote]
So basically you hate everyone having sex that isn’t doing so for the purposes of pro-creation. I can dig it. That’s consistent.
So long as you’re not ok with heteros having premarital sex but not ok with homos.[/quote]
I’ve yet to see this, ever. In fact, most of the people I hear who are against homosexuality themselves practice premarital/nonmarital sex.
Ah, but then that means they’ve yet to adopt non-discriminatory state recognized marriage! I’ve been asking those of you who throw out nonsense like “discriminate” and “bigot” to offer up a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Show us the complete absence of bigotry within your big hearts. Give us this definition.
Unapologetically I want to keep to heterosexual marriage on a pedestal…
What slippery slope game? Look at we’re at now in marriage, divorce, intact homes, and now discussing what the hell marriage even is, if it can even have a definition which keep it from being ‘bigoted.’
Show me nations with legalized gay marriage. However, only, and I mean only, if you post their divorce/marriage rate, out of wed-lock rates, and–perhaps most importantly–their fertility. Largely a bunch of graying, barren, already at the bottom (which is why they even passed such legislation) of the slope, nations. I’m guessing another common theme would be that of populations largely going extinct (factor out the fertility rates of recent arrivals, and it’s worse), replacing themselves with immigrants who hold to larger and more traditional family values. Aint that a twist.
In fact, I’m going to throw the down the gauntlet. Non-bigots who’ve already posted in this thread are now to be considered bigots, unless they make another post containing the new completely non-discriminatory definition of state-recognized marriage. I’m going to set up a welcoming station at this here “bigot” club. Have a feeling we’re going to see some new members. That, or again, the underlying philosophy is brought to light; the eradication of state-recognized marriage will become the new focus of this thread.