What's next, Loaves and Fishes ??

[Perd Hapley]

I am a student of history.  In my third year.  Where do you get this noise? 

Marriage is an essentially heterosexual social construct.  Any human adult who's been paying attention should be able to figure that one out.  A thing can only mutate so far, until it becomes something else.  Obviously, once marriage mutates to the point that it no longer contains at least one member of each sex, it loses it's qualification as a marriage. 

You know it's almost like the argument that the Second Amendment applies to machine guns, not just flintlock muskets.  Except that you're saying the second amendment should be applied to damp sponges.  After all, anything can be used as a weapon, and society's opinion of what is or is not a weapon can change over time.   :rolleyes:

[MicroBalrog]

So you're arguing that polygamy does qualify as marriage?

[Perd Hapley]

marriage and family are social constructs. They mutate with age according to the requirements of society and economics.

This social construct business is a dead end for you, I'm afraid. 

Economically, there is absolutely zero pressure to change the status quo.  How does our current economy militate for the legal regulation of homosexual relationships?  How is that important to our well-being, as a society? 

And if the pressure is social, that is merely the arbitrary judgment of the minority of Americans that actually support the idea.  The true "construct" is the recently fabricated notion that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, and therefore a homosexual relationship can be a marriage.  Surely, we ought to see some good reason to believe this, before we actually write it into our laws.

[Perd Hapley]

So you're arguing that polygamy does qualify as marriage?

You're changing the subject.  Of course polygamy is marriage, so long as there's at least one member of each sex in there.  How does this relate?  Don't waste our time answering; it doesn't. 

[MicroBalrog]

Under your argument, making polygamy legal would be okay, as it doesn't shift the social definition of marriage, but not a marriage of two gay people.

In fact, in your rationale, any kind of bizarre arrangement with N+1 males and females would be okay, it is only FF and MM marriages that are not.

This seems strange.

[Vodka7]

Let's not waste time arguing semantics.  Yes, marriage is between (or among, whatever) a man and a woman--there's no arguing that.

But, how does it affect you and me if two men want to call each other HWMBO?  What could we possibly have to lose by that?  Why should I care if a word is used incorrectly or, over time, takes on a new meaning?  You have another thread going on about a word that has opposite meanings--words change.

Personally, I'd much rather the government just get out of the marriage business entirely.  If Jack and Jim or Jane and Janice can find a church crazy enough to marry them, I'm all for it.

[KD5NRH]

Personally, I'd much rather the government just get out of the marriage business entirely.

Therein lies the problem; certain privileges are extended to married couples, and there exists a means by which jointly held property is disposed of in the event of dissolution of the union, or transferred to the survivor if either dies, as well as means for handling the responsibility for dependents in either case.  IMO, these are not necessarily bad things, but I don't see the reason why a particular type of relationship is necessary for the privileges.  I should be able to enter into such a contract with any sane adult with no more difficulty than I entered it with my wife, regardless of that person's gender or familial relationship to me.

One example I can think of is two brothers who had moved in together after one's divorce, but both had to maintain jobs even though they didn't need the money, because neither could carry the other on his employer's insurance.  Also, in many states, the ex-wife would have a significant claim to that brother's estate in the event of his death, even though the other brother contributes far more to the well-being of their joint property.  If he remarries, his employer will not get to approve or disapprove of his new wife, since they offer spouse and dependent coverage, so why should they get to refuse his current life partner?

[Manedwolf]

But, how does it affect you and me if two men want to call each other HWMBO?  What could we possibly have to lose by that?  Why should I care if a word is used incorrectly or, over time, takes on a new meaning?  You have another thread going on about a word that has opposite meanings--words change.

It affects you if you own a business with employees. Not only do you have to extend coverage, but you have to tacitly endorse the lifestyle.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Therein lies the problem; certain privileges are extended to married couples, and there exists a means by which jointly held property is disposed of in the event of dissolution of the union, or transferred to the survivor if either dies, as well as means for handling the responsibility for dependents in either case.  IMO, these are not necessarily bad things, but I don't see the reason why a particular type of relationship is necessary for the privileges.  I should be able to enter into such a contract with any sane adult with no more difficulty than I entered it with my wife, regardless of that person's gender or familial relationship to me.

You can enter into such a contract with any adult with no difficulty whatsoever.  You don't need to be married. 

I suggest you talk to a good attorney. 

[RaspberrySurprise]

You can enter into such a contract with any adult with no difficulty whatsoever.  You don't need to be married. 

I suggest you talk to a good attorney. 

And what are the cost differences between a marriage license from the state and the services of a good attorney? Therein lies the rub.

[Monkeyleg]

And what are the cost differences between a marriage license from the state and the services of a good attorney? Therein lies the rub.

The marriage license is a one-size-fits-all contract that was drawn up by attorneys, and so costs less than a custom contract.

[Perd Hapley]

And what are the cost differences between a marriage license from the state and the services of a good attorney? Therein lies the rub.

There is no rub.  There is no reason why a homosexual partnership should cost the same as a marriage.  It is neither the same as, nor as common as, a marriage.  And since such partnership has no effect on society at large, why should I care about it? 

[Perd Hapley]

Vodka7,

If marriage is just a matter of semantics, then homosexuals have no basis on which to complain that they are missing out on anything.  I would say you've chosen a silly argument, but there simply are no rational arguments for putting homosexuality and marriage on the same footing, so you've chosen as well as you could. 

Under your argument, making polygamy legal would be okay, as it doesn't shift the social definition of marriage, but not a marriage of two gay people.

In fact, in your rationale, any kind of bizarre arrangement with N+1 males and females would be okay, it is only FF and MM marriages that are not.

This seems strange.

1.  I'm not making an argument.  I'm stating a fact.  Marriage, by definition, involves a male and female union. 

2.  I didn't say that every marriage is OK.  To say that polygamy is one form of marriage is, again, just a statement of fact.  It does not therefore follow that it should be legally or morally acceptable. 

3.  Nothing strange about it. 

[MicroBalrog]

I did not say that you consider polygamy to be generally okay (although of course I do), but that the argument you mounted against the legality of homosexual marriage can only be used against homosexual marriage, not against attempts to make other stuff legal (as of course it should be).

[Perd Hapley]

Again, there is no argument presented.  There is only a statement of fact.  That this fact does not militate against polygamy should not surprise you. 

I suppose you just find me to be a contrast from the usual line of the religious conservative, who appeals to Christ's formula of "one man, one woman, for life."  This is a religious teaching, not a fact. 

[MicroBalrog]

My argument is as follows:

1. I do not believe homosexuality is morally inferior to heterosexuality or whatnot. The notion of homosexuality being morally inferior is religious in basis.

2. I would really prefer there would be no tax breaks or whatnot for any kind of marriage. However, if there are tax breaks to type A marriage, there should also be tax breaks for any other kind of marriage. The reasoning is as follows:

a) Generally, the government should not discriminate against people based on their consensual sex acts or types of personal relationships.

b) Society changes, and so does our environment. By not encouraging one type of marriage over the other, we're allowing people to experiment and try new social arrangements, as long as they're consensual. This is a good, good thing.

c) Some people think heterosexual marriage should be encouraged because it leads to more children. I'm not sure we need more children.

[Jamisjockey]

b) Society changes, and so does our environment. By not encouraging one type of marriage over the other, we're allowing people to experiment and try new social arrangements, as long as they're consensual. This is a good, good thing.

I didn't see anything I disagreed with in the rest of your argument....but this part had me head-scratchin'.      
A "good, good thing" for whom? 
And how does homosexuality encourage the evolution of the human species? 
In all seriousness, I'm just trying to understand your statement. 

[MicroBalrog]

What did anything I said have to do with the evolution of the human species? The evolution of the human species (or any other) is a biological process. I'm talking about a social process here.

For example, we know that as societies become more advanced, people have less children. For example, there are all sorts of social reasons for why it's a good idea not to have 20+ babies if you're a Ph.D. from California, but if you're an illiterate Liberian farmer, then having as many babies as you can humanly can is a very, very good idea. There are all sorts of reasons why ancient Jews had the age of majority kick in at 13 and why it generally kicks in at 18 now.

There are all sorts of social and economic arrangements that people have that fit for one situation but not another. One of the reasons that we have individual freedom is because it is a very good idea to have people doing whatever they're best at, obviously to a certain limit.

This is A more detailed page on this topic.

[roo_ster]

My argument is as follows:

1. I do not believe homosexuality is morally inferior to heterosexuality or whatnot. The notion of homosexuality being morally inferior is religious in basis.

Plenty of non-religious types disagree. 

Also, lots of non-moral and non-religious arguments against it, many of them empirical and statistical.

a) Generally, the government should not discriminate against people based on their consensual sex acts or types of personal relationships.

Really? Pedophilia just fine in that book, as long as the kiddo says "yes?"  Zoophilia just fine, as long as the person getting "biblical" with the livestock is the owner? 

Also, some relationships have markedly different effects on the society at large.

b) Society changes, and so does our environment. By not encouraging one type of marriage over the other, we're allowing people to experiment and try new social arrangements, as long as they're consensual. This is a good, good thing.

Uh-huh.  BTDT, seen the effects of Austin Power-like arrangements up close & personal and in the social science data.  Encouraging that sort of damage is irresponsible, even if there is agreement not to outlaw it.

"No doubt, love, but as long as people are still having promiscuous sex with many anonymous partners without protection while at the same time experimenting with mind-expanding drugs in a consequence-free environment, I'll be sound as a pound! "

c) Some people think heterosexual marriage should be encouraged because it leads to more children. I'm not sure we need more children.

Here is a place to start weaning yourself off that misconception (yuk-yuk):
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=11589.msg205288#msg205288
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=11589.msg205473#msg205473

[MicroBalrog]

Really? Pedophilia just fine in that book, as long as the kiddo says "yes?"  Zoophilia just fine, as long as the person getting "biblical" with the livestock is the owner? 

The whole purpose of bans on these activities is that children  are not able to give consent.

Uh-huh.  BTDT, seen the effects of Austin Power-like arrangements up close & personal and in the social science data.  Encouraging that sort of damage is irresponsible, even if there is agreement not to outlaw it. [q/uote]

I know some people who've done that and emerged as good, productive members of society. And not-outlawing it is not the same as encouraging it.

Here is a place to start weaning yourself off that misconception (yuk-yuk):

I don't see how showing that we have a population decline (if we do) proves that a population decline is  bad. Why is a population decline bad?

[Manedwolf]

[Strings]

You know, I'm half-tempted to try an experiment on here.

Go into every thread that has both Micro and Fistful, and post "gay marriage".

 I'm wondering if y'all could possibly leave one alone, or if it's just required on y'all's parts to derail a thread ANY time "gay marriage" is mentioned...  :rolleyes:

[Perd Hapley]

Neither one of us brought up the subject.  I'm tired of being told that I shouldn't care about it.  If people like yourself and Mr. Obama would quit trying to tell me what I'm supposed to care about, maybe I wouldn't go on about it so much. 

I hate to compare you to Obama, but yeah, this subject gets on my nerves a bit.  Maybe don't bring up the subject with me. 

And since Micro has gone off on his own line of discussion that doesn't bear on what I said, I suppose I'll leave off for now. 

[Strings]

>If people like yourself and Mr. Obama would quit trying to tell me what I'm supposed to care about, maybe I wouldn't go on about it so much. <

Dude... did you actually READ the post where I mentioned it? Where I made the point that you only know what the actual important issues are in hindsight?

 You compare me to Obama, yet you're the one acting like a liberal: someone mentions "gay marriage" without immediately saying "it's bad", and you knee-jerk off on a tangent. I was making a point that politics is alot like war: you only know what's a feint and what's not after the fact...

 And yes, Micro is just as guilty as you are, on this one. Y'all created a debate that went on for damn near a full page (so far) because neither one of you will either a)admit the other has a point, or b)back off and agree to disagree. Instead, EVERY time the words "gay" and "marriage" are used together, y'all hijack whatever thread it happens in to go on (again).

 Hence my wondering if it's possible for you two to see the words, without immediately relaunching that debate.

 Here's a quick clue: EVERYONE on this forum knows that you (Mr Tactical Pants) are against any form of "gay marriage" or "same sex civil union". Everyone also knows that you (MicroBalrog) are in favor of same.

 Now can you PLEASE stop hijacking threads to rehash those two facts?

[MicroBalrog]

Bah, Strings has a point. *leaves*.