NationStates Jolt Archive

In another thread someone claimed that the definition and purpose of marriage is 'self-evident'. I suggest it's not or at least, if it is, the definition is not what he/she is expecting. Would you mind stating specifically what you think the definition of marriage is? I would prefer it if this not become another same-sex marriage debate, but I suspect it will eventually degrade into that. I just ask that before you start tearing apart the definitions of others, could you please, in your first post, define marriage. We're not looking for a dictionary definition. Just your personal view of what marriage is.

My definition: the union of two people in love.

In another thread someone claimed that the definition and purpose of marriage is 'self-evident'. I suggest it's not or at least, if it is, the definition is not what he/she is expecting. Would you mind stating specifically what you think the definition of marriage is? I would prefer it if this not become another same-sex marriage debate, but I suspect it will eventually degrade into that. I just ask that before you start tearing apart the definitions of others, could you please, in your first post, define marriage. We're not looking for a dictionary definition. Just your personal view of what marriage is.

My definition: the union of two people in love.

My definition as well.

Marriage is the Divinely ordained process of two people of differing genders monogamously becoming one with each other physically, spiritually, emotionally and intellectually united under God.

Marriage is the Divinely ordained process of two people of differing genders monogamously becoming one with each other physically, spiritually, emotionally and intellectually united under God.

Intellectually?

Legally: The union of two people into a single entity under law.

Religiously: The union of two people who are in love and wish to spend the rest of their lives together with the blessing of whatever deity, deities, or natural forces they choose to worship.

Socially: A way for two people who intend to spend their lives together to make those intentions clear to the community.

Intellectually?

Yes, united in purpose, becoming as the two parts of one whole rather than two seperate entities at all levels of human experience.

Marriage is the Divinely ordained process of two people of differing genders monogamously becoming one with each other physically, spiritually, emotionally and intellectually united under God.

"Differing genders" not "differing sexes". Well worded.

Marriage is the Divinely ordained process of two people of differing genders monogamously becoming one with each other physically, spiritually, emotionally and intellectually united under God.
So people who don't get married in a church aren't married?

I'll go with teh definition on dictionary.com.

I don't understand why we even bother definining anything anymore - "marriage" included.

Irregardless of what any one of us feels, however so strongly, the definition of marriage is, someone else will feel otherwise.

Unless everyone can agree on a standard base to derive morality from, I feel all attempts to define just about everything are going to come to naught.

In the end, it's pointless anyway - in times past, "marriage" was defined under the quote-unquote "christian" viewpoint, and now it's being considered from another POV - in whatever case we find ourselves in, the majority will rule, and alter the percevied definition (legally, and by extention, socially) - if you happen to believe in the minority, it still won't matter.

I don't understand why we even bother definining anything anymore - "marriage" included.

Irregardless of what any one of us feels, however so strongly, the definition of marriage is, someone else will feel otherwise.

Unless everyone can agree on a standard base to derive morality from, I feel all attempts to define just about everything are going to come to naught.

In the end, it's pointless anyway - in times past, "marriage" was defined under the quote-unquote "christian" viewpoint, and now it's being considered from another POV - in whatever case we find ourselves in, the majority will rule, and alter the percevied definition (legally, and by extention, socially) - if you happen to believe in the minority, it still won't matter.

I see. Because in countries like Canada and Spain, the gay population was such a large majority that they were able to redefine marriage. Of course, it all makes sense now.

Your argument that 'it's too hard, so why bother' is rather pathetic.

By the way:
Marriage, n.: two persons consentually joined in legal and socioeconomic bindings for the betterment of themselves, their family, and society

I don't understand why we even bother definining anything anymore - "marriage" included.

Irregardless of what any one of us feels, however so strongly, the definition of marriage is, someone else will feel otherwise.

Unless everyone can agree on a standard base to derive morality from, I feel all attempts to define just about everything are going to come to naught.

In the end, it's pointless anyway - in times past, "marriage" was defined under the quote-unquote "christian" viewpoint, and now it's being considered from another POV - in whatever case we find ourselves in, the majority will rule, and alter the percevied definition (legally, and by extention, socially) - if you happen to believe in the minority, it still won't matter.

Fine, people will disagree. I'm not asking what you think everyone's POV is. I asked YOU to state how YOU define marriage. Please do so. All I'm trying to show is that the definition of marriage is not 'self-evident'.

So people who don't get married in a church aren't married?

I'll go with teh definition on dictionary.com.

Please post your personal definition of marriage and not the one from dictionary.com

"Two become one" is just a metphor.

Ideally, yes, the families merge, the sense of purpose merges, responsibilities merge, feelings merge and so on -- but without the realization that, though married, you're still two individuals, marriage can be a prison. People don't cease to change just because they marry -- even when people marry under the auspices of God, they must know that God's plan for each of them is ultimately unknowable. If that plan necessitates one of the married couple changing, then the other must adapt as well.

Now what if the other believes just as firmly that God has changed them, too? Seems to me any kind of epiphany leading to change that pulls a couple apart is still God's will, isn't it?

The point is, there needs to be both civil AND religious marriages: the former for legal status, the latter for the blessing of the couple's favored deity/concept. If they coincide, as most do now, that's fine; but both should be available alone, as people choose.

Thus:

LEGAL DEFINITION: Two, and only two, contract-age/eligible people.
RELIGIOUS DEFINITION: According to the participants' religion.

This solves the asinine "gay marriage means that eventually people will wanna marry their DOGS!" argument by saying this: you wanna marry your dog? You go right ahead. Neither of you are legally recognized because dogs cannot enter into legally binding contracts, but hey, according to your chosen faith, you're bound forever, hallelujah.

I see. Because in countries like Canada and Spain, the gay population was such a large majority that they were able to redefine marriage. Of course, it all makes sense now.

Your argument that 'it's too hard, so why bother' is rather pathetic.

By the way:
Marriage, n.: two persons consentually joined in legal and socioeconomic bindings for the betterment of themselves, their family, and society

Is that your definition or one you got of a dictionary. I would prefer to hear your words. I can search out dictionary definitions if I wish.

Is that your definition or one you got of a dictionary. I would prefer to hear your words. I can search out dictionary definitions if I wish.
If I wanted to put up a dictionary definition, it would have sounded a lot more professional.

--snip--
Irregardless of what any one of us feels,
--snip--


Sorry, I know this makes me a pedantic jackass, but dammit, that's NOT a word! "Regardless" is the word.

Please forgive the teacher instinct, but that particular error grates on my skull.

Two sentient beings publicly confirming their love.

Please post your personal definition of marriage and not the one from dictionary.com
Two people who agree to commit to each other for life, or until they deceide they hate each other, whichever comes first.

"Differing genders" not "differing sexes". Well worded.

I don't think he did that on purpose.

I don't think he did that on purpose.
I would agree.
And even the restriction on different gender, rather than sex, is foolish.

(throwback, my apologies)
I see. Because in countries like Canada and Spain, the gay population was such a large majority that they were able to redefine marriage. Of course, it all makes sense now.
Your argument that 'it's too hard, so why bother' is rather pathetic.
By the way:
Marriage, n.: two persons consentually joined in legal and socioeconomic bindings for the betterment of themselves, their family, and society
Firstly, the majority that I was talking about was the number of people who supported same-sex marriage, not those who specifically identified themselves as "gay" - I don't think I ever insinuated that.
Finally, my argument wasn't "it's too hard, so why bother" - rather, it's "there's no set definition (obviously), so why bother postulating that 'my way is the right way'?"

Just a few thoughts.

I don't think he did that on purpose.

Define it, Dem

Define it, Dem

Already did. :)

Already did. :)

Shoot, sure did. Sorry, kid.

Marriage; "a close and usually permanate union", from Middle-English "marien", and Old-French (marier).... originating as a nautical term for a joining of two ropes by interweave, to form a single length...

All other uses are just illusions of its core meaning...

My definition of marriage: Two people committing to each other romantically (supposedly) for the rest of their lives and having their commitment recognized by their government.

Sorry, I know this makes me a pedantic jackass, but dammit, that's NOT a word! "Regardless" is the word.

Please forgive the teacher instinct, but that particular error grates on my skull.
:D
My bad! Geez, I try to watch spelling/punctuation/grammer/everythingelse, and I go and do something like that.
My apologies - I do, indeed, (no, I really do! I swear!) know the difference between the non-existant "irregardless" and the, ahem.. correct meaning of the intent.

I don't understand why we even bother definining anything anymore - "marriage" included.

Irregardless of what any one of us feels, however so strongly, the definition of marriage is, someone else will feel otherwise.

Unless everyone can agree on a standard base to derive morality from, I feel all attempts to define just about everything are going to come to naught.

In the end, it's pointless anyway - in times past, "marriage" was defined under the quote-unquote "christian" viewpoint, and now it's being considered from another POV - in whatever case we find ourselves in, the majority will rule, and alter the percevied definition (legally, and by extention, socially) - if you happen to believe in the minority, it still won't matter.
definition of anything
an·y·thing ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-thng)
pron.
Any object, occurrence, or matter whatever.

adv.
To any degree or extent; at all: They aren't anything like last year's team.

n.
Something or someone of importance: “You had to be something to start with, and Jeremy never was anything” (Anne Tyler).

Marriage is two folks who love each other making a commitment to be together for life.

My definition: the union of two people in love.
I'd change that to: the union of consenting adults.

What's love got to do with it, and what's with the emphasis on two? (sorry, had to...but seriously, love is not the only reason people get married, and I'm in favour of polygamy)

I'd change that to: the union of consenting adults.

What's love got to do with it, and what's with the emphasis on two? (sorry, had to...but seriously, love is not the only reason people get married, and I'm in favour of polygamy)

Listen, missy, don't correct mine. Just post yours. My personal definition is almost exactly what I posted, but I would be better represented by - union of two consenting adults in love.

Listen, missy, don't correct mine. Just post yours. My personal definition is almost exactly what I posted, but I would be better represented by - union of two consenting adults in love.
I didn't change yours. I quoted it in its entirety. I was merely agreeing, but pointing out I thought it should be expanded. Geekhead.

Marriage is a joining of two people to become "as one." It began as a sexual union of the male gods with the female goddess, with their human counterparts on Earth adopting the roles, in a ritual that commemorated the continuance of life (goddess) and the fertility of the Earth (god). Today we fertize our crops with Round-Up. So, while marriage is a union between a man and a woman, the symbolism that ideal represents has long since become obsolete (i.e. it doesn't mean that to people today). At it's base is the concept of opposite consciousnesses and bodies attacting, and that can certainly be accommodated between lovers of any gender.

I didn't change yours. I quoted it in its entirety. I was merely agreeing, but pointing out I thought it should be expanded. Geekhead.

Quit flaming ;-)

Sorry, I know this makes me a pedantic jackass, but dammit, that's NOT a word! "Regardless" is the word.

Please forgive the teacher instinct, but that particular error grates on my skull.


FYI: Irregardless is a word, but an archaic one that is considered grammatically incorrect in a writing context.

It began as a sexual union of the male gods with the female goddess, with their human counterparts on Earth adopting the roles, in a ritual that commemorated the continuance of life (goddess) and the fertility of the Earth (god). Today we fertize our crops with Round-Up.
ROFL :D

FYI: Irregardless is a word, but an archaic one that is considered grammatically incorrect in a writing context.

One wonders how a word can be "archaic" which was coined in the 20th century....

One wonders how a word can be "archaic" which was coined in the 20th century....
I was wondering that myself:

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less

Function: adverb

Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless

nonstandard : REGARDLESS

usage: Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

marriage is the union between 2 people who love and respect eachother and want to share the aspects of thier lives with eachother. :fluffle:

Marriage is the Divinely ordained process of two people of differing genders monogamously becoming one with each other physically, spiritually, emotionally and intellectually united under God.

Hmm, very interesting. By the strictest interpetation of this my wife and I are not married as we were united under many gods. Neither is anyone married in a civil cerimony . . .

Sorry, I know this makes me a pedantic jackass, but dammit, that's NOT a word! "Regardless" is the word.

Please forgive the teacher instinct, but that particular error grates on my skull.

Well, to be even more pedantic than you, it IS actualy a word. It is a non-standard "slang" word but it is still a word as evidenced by the fact that we can understand it's meaning. Fgrtplx is not a word, Irregardless, while bad grammer is still a word.

...marriage. Yeah. Marriage.

So people who don't get married in a church aren't married?

I'll go with teh definition on dictionary.com.

Actually, I don't believe churches really have anything to do with marriage either. It is something that takes place between two people and God, with or without a minister or church involved.

"Two become one" is just a metphor.

Now what if the other believes just as firmly that God has changed them, too? Seems to me any kind of epiphany leading to change that pulls a couple apart is still God's will, isn't it?


It is written, "What God hath joined together, let no man put assunder." I don't read anywhere that God desires divorce/seperation and only allowed it due to the hardness of the human heart.

Also, the two become one idea is rather mysterious, but given that the Bible compares marriage to the relationship of the Trinity who are all One to the point of knowing each others thoughts and acting in complete unity, I'd say that the intent may be a little more than just "metephorical".

I don't think he did that on purpose.

Thanks for the clarification, but I was using the first of the following definitions of the word.

gen·der (jndr)
n.

1.The sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy.

2.Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.


Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam...

Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam...

Princess Bride anyone? ;)

Thanks for the clarification, but I was using the first of the following definitions of the word.

gen·der (jndr)
n.

1.The sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy.

2.Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.


Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Mirriam-webster is generally considered a better source for language debates since this is not a medical discussion and we are using basic language. Let's see what they have to say shall we.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=gender

Gender:
1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass
2 a : SEX <the feminine gender> b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

I assume you were using definition two.

I assume you were using definition two.

Correct, though, I believe, the definition I quoted to provide a greater level of clarity to the intent of my usage.

Define Marriage.

Simple.

Marriage: Noun. The civil union between a man and a woman.

Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam...
W00T!

Thanks for the clarification, but I was using the first of the following definitions of the word.

gen·der (jndr)
n.

1.The sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy.

So where do intersexed people fall into your classifications?

Do you think that states which define sex based on chromosomes are incorrect?

So where do intersexed people fall into your classifications?

Do you think that states which define sex based on chromosomes are incorrect?

Intersexed people present many moral quandries and I'd prefer not to say one way or the other who they should or shouldn't marry as there is no clear biblical direction on this issue.

As for your second question, there is certainly some validity to using chromosomal information to determine gender, but it isn't a field that I have sufficient expertise in to make a completely sound judgment, though I do believe that, in cases where there is a discrepancy between chromosome and genitalia, that functional genitalia should probably be the determining factor, though I don't know that I'd be willing to dictate or force that position on someone else.

FYI: Irregardless is a word, but an archaic one that is considered grammatically incorrect in a writing context.

I'll take "Wrong About Etymology" for 200, Alex:

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS

Usage: Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. ... [Accepted use] has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

okay... in this whole Etymological argument thing we have going on here, do people care more about communicating effectively or belittling someone else to make yourself look or feel more intelligent? ;)

I'll take "Wrong About Etymology" for 200, Alex:

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS

Usage: Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. ... [Accepted use] has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

I'll take "Echoed posts that have nothing to do with the subject" for 1000, Alex.

okay... in this whole Etymological argument thing we have going on here, do people care more about communicating effectively or belittling someone else to make yourself look or feel more intelligent? ;)

Both actually. I'd have let the original use go -- but when he started lecturing the other guy with the wrong information, I just couldn't pass it up.

Aw come on, this is what we technical writers do for fun at work.

As for your second question, there is certainly some validity to using chromosomal information to determine gender, but it isn't a field that I have sufficient expertise in to make a completely sound judgment, though I do believe that, in cases where there is a discrepancy between chromosome and genitalia, that functional genitalia should probably be the determining factor, though I don't know that I'd be willing to dictate or force that position on someone else.

Interesting.

I only asked because it is defined differently in different states. Some states define it by genitalia, so a sex-change operation would truly change the person's sex. Also, those with CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) who are technically XY, but have developed completely with female physiology and have generally been raised as females with no knowledge that they were not, would be female.

In other states, it is based upon chromosomes. Thus, those who have a sex-change are still viewed as their birth-sex, and women with CAIS would actually be deemed male - if a genetic test were done.

It ends up being a rather odd situation, especially when someone who has had a sex-change marries in one state, but moves to another that views the whole issue differently.

I'll take "Echoed posts that have nothing to do with the subject" for 1000, Alex.

Trebeck! You have a Penis Mightier?!?!?!?!

Well, there are a lot of considerations that haven't been touched on here... not ALL marriages are for love, nor even for the purpose of unity... some are acts of convenience, politics, personal gain, security... there are probably as many REASONS for marriage as there are people... and each one will put a slightly different complexion on the definition of the word.

Example: What has the Biblical definition to do with the illegal immigrant marrying for a Green Card? The marriage may still be 'legal', and, under some circumstances, may even be 'real'... but it is most assuredly not the 'marriage' of love.

My personal belief is that marriage should be defined as the mutual union of consenting adults.

I do not cite sex, gender, religion, race, or any other factor. I do not limit the number or 'type' of persons that I would define as 'married'.

For me, the only requirements are that (all) parties concerned are mutually consenting... and (all) 'adults'.

I'll take "Echoed posts that have nothing to do with the subject" for 1000, Alex.

*bows* To you, however, I will apologize, since it is your thread.

Sorry about going off-topic.

It ends up being a rather odd situation, especially when someone who has had a sex-change marries in one state, but moves to another that views the whole issue differently.

Which violates the constitution.

Interesting.

I only asked because it is defined differently in different states. Some states define it by genitalia, so a sex-change operation would truly change the person's sex. Also, those with CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) who are technically XY, but have developed completely with female physiology and have generally been raised as females with no knowledge that they were not, would be female.

In other states, it is based upon chromosomes. Thus, those who have a sex-change are still viewed as their birth-sex, and women with CAIS would actually be deemed male - if a genetic test were done.

It ends up being a rather odd situation, especially when someone who has had a sex-change marries in one state, but moves to another that views the whole issue differently.

It definitely creates some quandries. However, if Gov. wasn't invovled with marriage to begin with, it would become a none issue for the most part.

Which violates the constitution.

Well, who cares about that pesky little Article IV anyway? =)


It definitely creates some quandries. However, if Gov. wasn't invovled with marriage to begin with, it would become a none issue for the most part.

If the government didn't recognize marriage, then there would be no such things as civil marriage.

Of course, these same quandaries would also be posed to different faiths (or any secular institutions that began sanctioning marrage - I'm sure people will always want to celebrate their unions). Many faiths/denominations within a faith would draw the distinction in different places - thus a person who wished to switch churches might end up with problems.

It definitely creates some quandries. However, if Gov. wasn't invovled with marriage to begin with, it would become a none issue for the most part.

Or, on the other hand... if religion wasn't being crowbarred into a civil arrangement, no one religion would be able to impose it's 'moral code' on a simple premise like union.

Well, who cares about that pesky little Article IV anyway? =)



If the government didn't recognize marriage, then there would be no such things as civil marriage.

Of course, these same quandaries would also be posed to different faiths (or any secular institutions that began sanctioning marrage - I'm sure people will always want to celebrate their unions). Many faiths/denominations within a faith would draw the distinction in different places - thus a person who wished to switch churches might end up with problems.

To be quite honest, I don't know that churches have the responsibility of marrying people either. They do have the right to decide if they will grant membership and to decide whether or not they consider a marriage valid and/or whether or not a valid marriage is grounds to grant or decline membership, but IMO, marriage is between the two people and God.

Or, on the other hand... if religion wasn't being crowbarred into a civil arrangement, no one religion would be able to impose it's 'moral code' on a simple premise like union.

Personally, I don't even like "union". Perhaps the Gov. can grant specific privileges to a specific contractual agreement between two people...

Hells, I'll be the first on-topic post in ages I think.

Marriage: A legal union between two people to share economic resources, genetic offshoots (whether theirs or adopted), companionship and, usually, sexual relations of a monogamous type.

So an aethiest can never be married, eh?

Personally, I don't even like "union". Perhaps the Gov. can grant specific privileges to a specific contractual agreement between two people...

Well, 'union', like 'marriage', just means uniting disparate elements into an integral whole... so both seem like fair terms, to me.

Although - in respect to equality, I would assume that the same word (whether 'union' OR 'marriage') should always be used interchangably, regardless of the united persons.

Well, 'union', like 'marriage', just means uniting disparate elements into an integral whole... so both seem like fair terms, to me.

Although - in respect to equality, I would assume that the same word (whether 'union' OR 'marriage') should always be used interchangably, regardless of the united persons.

And would you argue that any kind of legal action can actually make a union of disparate elements or is it rather the choice of the disperate elements chosing to unity that makes the union, irrespective of legal action?

Marriage is a union between two people that the government should have none or minimal involvement in. If the two people wish to view it as a promise between themselves and God, then so be it. If people want to make it a social matter, go ahead. Maybe they are getting married in order to raise children, whatever. Let people live their lives the way they want to.

And would you argue that any kind of legal action can actually make a union of disparate elements or is it rather the choice of the disperate elements chosing to unity that makes the union, irrespective of legal action?

I see where you are headed with this, and I agree (quick, call the press!!!!)... unions will ALWAYS be decided by the persons involved, and the devil take all others... it's in our nature.

But...

(And you knew THAT was coming...) ((... :D...))

Our society DEMANDS legal union, because, without it, we are discriminated against.

Not just homosexual unions, either... the same situation exists where one 'guardian' fails to have the SAME LEGAL access to their 'children' that another parent has... or where two spinster sisters fail to have the same protections that a married couple would have... for example.

Try leaving your possessions to a friend, when you die... and see how different the process is likely to be to leaving the same possessions to a spouse.


That is why I believe unions should be a PURELY legal thing... between (any number of) consenting adults. The only requirements should be persons to 'second' the union (to ensure it's validity), and persons to 'witness' the union (to verify it's validity).

And, if someone wants a church ceremony... that should be their choice... but there is no lesser significance to a church NOT performed in a church, either...

Define marriage? Ok:

Three people, two birch trees, a pickle, five dogs, a can of seven-up, and thirteen stars on a field of blue, brought together in a touching ceremony conducted by a fruit-cake (human or otherwise) and a liverwurst.

Anything else is just plain silly.

Define marriage? Ok:

Three people, two birch trees, a pickle, five dogs, a can of seven-up, and thirteen stars on a field of blue, brought together in a touching ceremony conducted by a fruit-cake (human or otherwise) and a liverwurst.

Anything else is just plain silly.

Exactly! See? It's self-evident.

I see where you are headed with this, and I agree (quick, call the press!!!!)... unions will ALWAYS be decided by the persons involved, and the devil take all others... it's in our nature.

But...

(And you knew THAT was coming...) ((... :D...))

Our society DEMANDS legal union, because, without it, we are discriminated against.

Not just homosexual unions, either... the same situation exists where one 'guardian' fails to have the SAME LEGAL access to their 'children' that another parent has... or where two spinster sisters fail to have the same protections that a married couple would have... for example.

Try leaving your possessions to a friend, when you die... and see how different the process is likely to be to leaving the same possessions to a spouse.


That is why I believe unions should be a PURELY legal thing... between (any number of) consenting adults. The only requirements should be persons to 'second' the union (to ensure it's validity), and persons to 'witness' the union (to verify it's validity).

And, if someone wants a church ceremony... that should be their choice... but there is no lesser significance to a church NOT performed in a church, either...

The issue of parental rights is clearly a significant one and a de facto legal union does need to be created in that case. As for property related unions, they should only be created when two or more individuals chose to enter into them voluntarily. Disposition of property upon death is basically already covered by current law though it would require some modification if marriage law was changed.

Also, IMO, contractual agreements between individuals should not grant said parties any legal entitlements other than those granted in the contract itself.

Marriage is the action by which adults with informed consent, create a mutual union for legal, social, romantic and/or relgious reasons.

The state should get OUT of the marriage business ENTIRELY. Just the issueance of "Civil Union" papers to define legal rights and obligations of couples that have entered a state of civil union such as property rights, medical Power of attorney, etc.

Marriage should return to being the exclusive pervue of Religious Institutions, no religious institution should be required to perform a marriage that is in conflict w/it's religious tennents.

Thus will it would be possible to be married under "God" the state should NOT recognize this as a civil union. A couple could have civil union and NOT be married. Or a couple could be recognized as a couple via both institutions.

My definition: the union of two people in love.

that won't work. it rules out two common types of marriages - arranged marriages and polygamous marriages - and doesn't specify what sort of union is being made (for some reason, i now have an image of a musical entitled 'teamsters in love').

i'd go with something like:
a social and economic union of two or more people recognized as 'legitimate' by the community.

i know, i know, scare quotes in a definition is not a good sign. but the concept of marriage is anthropologically kind of squishy.

that won't work. it rules out two common types of marriages - arranged marriages and polygamous marriages - and doesn't specify what sort of union is being made (for some reason, i now have an image of a musical entitled 'teamsters in love').

i'd go with something like:
a social and economic union of two or more people recognized as 'legitimate' by the community.

i know, i know, scare quotes in a definition is not a good sign. but the concept of marriage is anthropologically kind of squishy.
I didn't ask for an anthropological or historical definition. I explained what I recognize as a marriage and what I think should be protected by law. I do not recognize that people should be allowed to arrange marriages for their children. I think it is akin to slavery. I also don't recognize polygamy. I think that we should deny people the right to practice polygamy, but I don't think it should be recognized under law. I think there is too much potential for abuse.

I didn't ask for an anthropological or historical definition. I explained what I recognize as a marriage and what I think should be protected by law. I do not recognize that people should be allowed to arrange marriages for their children. I think it is akin to slavery. I also don't recognize polygamy. I think that we should deny people the right to practice polygamy, but I don't think it should be recognized under law. I think there is too much potential for abuse.Here is the crux of the problem, Jocabia: What, where, how, who gave you - or anyone else - the right to decide that what you think has to be or should be binding on others?

Suppose I got to decide? And suppose I decided that ONLY polygamous marriage would be allowed? Don't argue that I can't - just for the sake of discussion, suppose that I do get to make the rule, and suppose that I'm just crazy enough to make it that ONLY polygamous marriage will be allowed? Would you accept that? How would it make you feel? Particularly about what you think a marriage is, and ought to be? Would you want to get married your way anyway? But you couldn't, because it would be illegal.

Just think about that for a bit.

Then think about this. We should not make any laws that infringe on anyones right to do anything, unless that "anything" will actually physically hurt someone else. Life is difficult enough without us going around making it harder for ourselves and/or others.

So, if three people and a pickle want to marry two birch trees and a can of seven-up - we should let them.

The idea that marriage needs to be defined is ridiculous. Why must everything fit into round or square holes. Can't there be as many definitions as there are persons opinions. Marriage could simply be two (or even more) persons attesting their love for each other openly to friends and family. Even within a relationship each person could view the role of marriage differently.

I didn't ask for an anthropological or historical definition. I explained what I recognize as a marriage and what I think should be protected by law. I do not recognize that people should be allowed to arrange marriages for their children. I think it is akin to slavery. I also don't recognize polygamy. I think that we should deny people the right to practice polygamy, but I don't think it should be recognized under law. I think there is too much potential for abuse.

so not a definition at all, but rather a personal preference for how we ought to exclude some marriages from legal recognition. why call it a definition then?

Can't there be as many definitions as there are persons opinions.

not if you want to allow people to communicate with other people.

Well, religiously, marriage is a covenant between God (or any deity/deities) and a man and a woman who share mutual love and agree to remain faithful to one another until death or morally justifiable divorce.

Legally, or in secular terms, it is a bond between two adults (either heterosexual or homosexual depending on the legality of SSM) who recieve certain benefits from the state, and lasts until death or divorce.

Here is the crux of the problem, Jocabia: What, where, how, who gave you - or anyone else - the right to decide that what you think has to be or should be binding on others?

Suppose I got to decide? And suppose I decided that ONLY polygamous marriage would be allowed? Don't argue that I can't - just for the sake of discussion, suppose that I do get to make the rule, and suppose that I'm just crazy enough to make it that ONLY polygamous marriage will be allowed? Would you accept that? How would it make you feel? Particularly about what you think a marriage is, and ought to be? Would you want to get married your way anyway? But you couldn't, because it would be illegal.

Just think about that for a bit.

Then think about this. We should not make any laws that infringe on anyones right to do anything, unless that "anything" will actually physically hurt someone else. Life is difficult enough without us going around making it harder for ourselves and/or others.

So, if three people and a pickle want to marry two birch trees and a can of seven-up - we should let them.
Who said I get to decide or think that I should get to decide? I just said what I think. That's the purpose of the law. I didn't ask people what was legal or scientific or fair or religious. I asked people to define marriage as they see it.

And, yes, you can marry a can of seven-up but the government will not recognize your marriage to the can of seven-up because it can't enter into a legal contract. Now, as far as marriage law is concerned, look at it like this. The mafia makes the entire mafia marry each other. Now, no member of the mafia can be forced to testify against any other member, for example. I'm not suggesting this would actually happen, I just think there is a lot more to consider when you make it legal for as many people to marry as you like. I could marry the entire country of Ethopia and make them all US citizens. There is a reason to not allow marriage law to be so loosely defined.

so not a definition at all, but rather a personal preference for how we ought to exclude some marriages from legal recognition. why call it a definition then?

I'm asking what it means to you. Much like love has a specific meaning to you.

not if you want to allow people to communicate with other people.

Again, I cite the word love. The general idea is the same, but there are nuances that make it mean differently to each person.

For eample, everyone basically agrees that marriage is a union. We disagree on the number of people involved, whether love is involved, whether it has to be consenting adults, whether it can be arranged, whether it has to be heterosexual, whether children is the focux of marriage (another thread), whether it's a covenent of God. I would say it's not as simple as you'd like it to be.

Man to woman only.
End of story.

Man to woman only.
End of story.What a short, sad, pathetic story your life is going to be.

And I say that as a monogamous heterosexual married for 26 years.

Wake up, folks. Your sadly thin, restricted, anemic definition of marriage simply does not apply to anyone except yourselves. What is it, exactly, that you are afraid of, that you are so desperately trying to prevent, by prohibiting marriages you don't approve of? And who, by the way, gives a damn if you approve?

What a short, sad, pathetic story your life is going to be.

That was tad uncalled for. Plenty of people lead fulfilling lives without ever recognizing moral relativity.

That was tad uncalled for. Plenty of people lead fulfilling lives without ever recognizing moral relativity.Yup. Sad, short, pathetic lives.

And if they choose to live such restricted and constricted lives, fine. But it is NOT fine when they decide to impose their restrictions and constrictions on others.

Yup. Sad, short, pathetic lives.

I don’t see how this has anything to do with length. Sad and pathetic in your opinion.

And if they choose to live such restricted and constricted lives, fine. But it is NOT fine when they decide to impose their restrictions and constrictions on others.

Agreed. Though your rhetoric is still uncalled for. If someone is truly happy seeing the world as black and white, why insult them for it?

I don’t see how this has anything to do with length. Sad and pathetic in your opinion.



Agreed. Though your rhetoric is still uncalled for. If someone is truly happy seeing the world as black and white, why insult them for it?To use your metaphor, because I'm sick and tired of them trying to put laws in place insisting that colors don't exist, and attempting to force everyone else into their little black and white mold.

Again, if that is the way they choose to live, fine. Until they try to foist their choice on others - then it cease to be fine.

A marriage is a contract which any consenting adult of legal age can enter with another consenting adult or several consenting adults.

The neccesary part include this, but may include more depending on the members.
Economics, death, sickness, purpose, property, custody in case of children or disability, termination of the marriage and primary agreement.

What a short, sad, pathetic story your life is going to be.

And I say that as a monogamous heterosexual married for 26 years.

Wake up, folks. Your sadly thin, restricted, anemic definition of marriage simply does not apply to anyone except yourselves. What is it, exactly, that you are afraid of, that you are so desperately trying to prevent, by prohibiting marriages you don't approve of? And who, by the way, gives a damn if you approve?

So unless we agree with your beliefs about marriage, unless 'you approve' of our beliefs, we're pathetic. Good to know. Us judging what is acceptable? Pathetic. You judging what is acceptable and calling all others pathetic? Good. Glad that's settled. (Sarcasm intended)

What is the point of the Government's recognition of marriage anyway?

If the government grants legal rights and responsibilities via the recognition of marriage (like automatic citizenship) and joins properties of different individuals (outside of pre-nuptial agreements etc.,) and allows one to be responsible for the debts of the other (credit card companies trying to sue the 'married' couple's assets instead of just the individual that incurred the debt) and so many other aspects that haven't been mentioned here, I think the government DOES have the right to determine what IS eligible and what is NOT eligible for marriage recognition. Otherwise it has to dissolve the entire institution as a short-cut for creating legal unification of individuals.

(note: even marriage doesn't automatically join properties and assets ~ despite what keeps getting said here. Change of name forms are still needed for License bureaus and Quit Claim deeds still need to be filed at the local courthouses and all titles and deeds etc., still need to be manually changed if all properties are to be joined)

There are SO many aspects of recognizing a marriage that it would seem beneficial for government to drop the entire thing. But since they do allow this method of legally joining individuals, the government has a vested interest in controlling who can and who does not have the right to utilize the system. Like it or not, even President Bush understands that part of it, when he endorsed the amendment idea last year one of his speech writers must have recognized how it need to be worded to make it stand with the other amendments...

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.

He pointed out there that the definition of a social institution’s recognition by government does not in itself necessitate the need to be considered a civil right. Although the court will address the issue, even a secular government has the power and right to define what does and does not qualify for government definition of a liberty.

In my way of thing, the DOMA is perfectly constitutional because it merely defines what the liberty applies to. On the other hand, SSM would be legal as well, I don't see how the courts can determine it HAS to be one way or the other. Either way, the people will decide.

Well, to be even more pedantic than you, it IS actualy a word. It is a non-standard "slang" word but it is still a word as evidenced by the fact that we can understand it's meaning. Fgrtplx is not a word, Irregardless, while bad grammer is still a word.

Sorry, but in addition to teaching (and grading essays) I proofread and edit for the remainder of my living. You are, of course, correct, I looked it up too, but in my world, that word doesn't exist.

And to up pedantic ante even further, G-R-A-M-M-A-R.

It is written, "What God hath joined together, let no man put assunder." I don't read anywhere that God desires divorce/seperation and only allowed it due to the hardness of the human heart.

Also, the two become one idea is rather mysterious, but given that the Bible compares marriage to the relationship of the Trinity who are all One to the point of knowing each others thoughts and acting in complete unity, I'd say that the intent may be a little more than just "metephorical".

Well, you also won't read anywhere in that same book about light bulbs, steam engines or the Internet, but that's beside the point. Did God actaully allow for divorce? My earlier post was part philosophical and part smartass, but it seems to me that if God actually SAYS divorce is sad but permissible, where did the Catholic Church get off nixing it for so many centuries? Think of all the lives that could have been saved (in the Henry VIII household alone) had they just read their own book (if that's the case)?

"Two become one" is still just a metaphor to me. You made a good attempt, though.

What is the point of the Government's recognition of marriage anyway?

If the government grants legal rights and responsibilities via the recognition of marriage (like automatic citizenship) and joins properties of different individuals (outside of pre-nuptial agreements etc.,) and allows one to be responsible for the debts of the other (credit card companies trying to sue the 'married' couple's assets instead of just the individual that incurred the debt) and so many other aspects that haven't been mentioned here, I think the government DOES have the right to determine what IS eligible and what is NOT eligible for marriage recognition. Otherwise it has to dissolve the entire institution as a short-cut for creating legal unification of individuals.

(note: even marriage doesn't automatically join properties and assets ~ despite what keeps getting said here. Change of name forms are still needed for License bureaus and Quit Claim deeds still need to be filed at the local courthouses and all titles and deeds etc., still need to be manually changed if all properties are to be joined)

There are SO many aspects of recognizing a marriage that it would seem beneficial for government to drop the entire thing. But since they do allow this method of legally joining individuals, the government has a vested interest in controlling who can and who does not have the right to utilize the system. Like it or not, even President Bush understands that part of it, when he endorsed the amendment idea last year one of his speech writers must have recognized how it need to be worded to make it stand with the other amendments...

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.

He pointed out there that the definition of a social institution’s recognition by government does not in itself necessitate the need to be considered a civil right. Although the court will address the issue, even a secular government has the power and right to define what does and does not qualify for government definition of a liberty.

In my way of thing, the DOMA is perfectly constitutional because it merely defines what the liberty applies to. On the other hand, SSM would be legal as well, I don't see how the courts can determine it HAS to be one way or the other. Either way, the people will decide.

And this works if you have no knowledge of Article IV and amendment 14 of the US Constitution, which apparently Bush and Clinton both weren't aware of. The fourteenth amendment is that crazy little amendment that requires we give equal rights and does not allow the government to discriminate on the basis of sex, creed, orientation, race, et al. And Article IV requires that civil court proceedings and licenses be honored by all other states. I know it's a stretch, but marriage licenses are likely to be included in that article of the constitution that seems to be well-known by everyone except our presidentS.

The formal union of man and woman, typically as recognised by law, by which they become man and wife.

Im assuming the undertones of this thread is about homosexuals. They keep insisting that we recognise their rights. You have rights. You are alive within a stable country, no doubt with some form of social assistance and a police force, and armed forces, working hard to keep you safe. What more do you want?

Evolution is normally interpreted as the good combinations surviving to pass on that characteristic into the future. I heavily disapprove of homosexuals. Man and Woman is natural. Man/Man and Woman/Woman is not. Marriage is known for the union of man and woman, who together will produce offspring. Even taking religion out completely, the fact remains. Homosexuals cannot produce offspring naturally, their genes will not be passed on into the future. Noone in the future will have their lineage and history, because they are gay. Why should they be allowed to get married? Besides, more and more people are just living together anyway...

A question. We are contantly told we must be tolerant, and be nice to people not of our group. I would like people to give credible reasons based on logic, not feelings or morals, as to why we should be nice to gays and give them marriage.

The formal union of man and woman, typically as recognised by law, by which they become man and wife.

Im assuming the undertones of this thread is about homosexuals. They keep insisting that we recognise their rights. You have rights. You are alive within a stable country, no doubt with some form of social assistance and a police force, and armed forces, working hard to keep you safe. What more do you want?

Evolution is normally interpreted as the good combinations surviving to pass on that characteristic into the future. I heavily disapprove of homosexuals. Man and Woman is natural. Man/Man and Woman/Woman is not. Marriage is known for the union of man and woman, who together will produce offspring. Even taking religion out completely, the fact remains. Homosexuals cannot produce offspring naturally, their genes will not be passed on into the future. Noone in the future will have their lineage and history, because they are gay. Why should they be allowed to get married? Besides, more and more people are just living together anyway...

A question. We are contantly told we must be tolerant, and be nice to people not of our group. I would like people to give credible reasons based on logic, not feelings or morals, as to why we should be nice to gays and give them marriage.

Thank you for attempting to hijack my thread, but it is in fact about how individuals see marriage and was sparked by an individual who said marriage is and always has been only about children.

As far as your question you can find the answer in the fourteenth amendment. Thanks for playing.

And this works if you have no knowledge of Article IV and amendment 14 of the US Constitution, which apparently Bush and Clinton both weren't aware of. The fourteenth amendment is that crazy little amendment that requires we give equal rights and does not allow the government to discriminate on the basis of sex, creed, orientation, race, et al. And Article IV requires that civil court proceedings and licenses be honored by all other states. I know it's a stretch, but marriage licenses are likely to be included in that article of the constitution that seems to be well-known by everyone except our presidentS.


So whats your point? That's why I said they have the right to define what the liberty is. They not only can, but they NEED to define what the liberty is by definition, above and beyone the state laws

They can make it illegal for any State to allow SSM, or force all states to accept it. As long as it's applied across the board equally, it's constituional. It's a liberty that requires definition.

Sorry for misinterpreting

Yes, i believe it is a very good concept as it allows a man and woman with the intent of living together and procreating to do so under the protection of law.

Much shorter than my last.

So whats your point? That's why I said they have the right to define what the liberty is. They not only can, but they NEED to define what the liberty is by definition, above and beyone the state laws

They can make it illegal for any State to allow SSM, or force all states to accept it. As long as it's applied across the board equally, it's constituional. It's a liberty that requires definition.

No, they, in fact, can't. The constitution does not allow the congress to violate it without first amending the constitution. Even applied across all states equally laws that discriminate on the basis of the sex of the people involved violate the fourteenth amendment and good luck trying to get that one repealed.

No, they, in fact, can't. The constitution does not allow the congress to violate it without first amending the constitution. Even applied across all states equally laws that discriminate on the basis of the sex of the people involved violate the fourteenth amendment and good luck trying to get that one repealed.

You are kidding right? There is no sexual discrimination. Both sexes can get married now, either with or without SSM. You have the right to vote, but they have a right to tell you where you get to vote. You have a right to do things, but the government has the right to define them.

You are kidding right? There is no sexual discrimination. Both sexes can get married now, either with or without SSM. You have the right to vote, but they have a right to tell you where you get to vote. You have a right to do things, but the government has the right to define them.

I'll go slowly. If you say I as a man am allowed to marry you cannot pass a law that says that I can only marry a woman, this is a law that descriminates based on sex. It's quite simple. The argument "both men and women are allowed to marry the opposite sex" is the same argument as "both blacks and whites are allowed to marry within their own race". The second argument has been repeatedly struck down and so will be the first argument.

EDIT: Nevermind, there are a thousand thread explaining this point. Go educate yourself on the fourteenth amendment and what it actually means and how DOMA very obviously violates Article IV. This isn't the thread to discuss it.

I'll go slowly. If you say I as a man am allowed to marry you cannot pass a law that says that I can only marry a woman, this is a law that descriminates based on sex. It's quite simple. The argument "both men and women are allowed to marry the opposite sex" is the same argument as "both blacks and whites are allowed to marry within their own race". The second argument has been repeatedly struck down and so will be the first argument.

I'll go slowly so you understand that the government has the right to define liberties.

You can drive, but only as fast as they say you can.

You can buy property, but they define how much tax you pay on it.

You can vote, but they say where and how you must register.

You have freedom of speech, but you are still held for liable.

You can use a public restroom, but they can define which one (gender/sex is seperated here, showing it is different from race and ethnic protections).

You can buy and sell restricted properties (like liquor and pornography for example) but they get to say to whom.

If you meet the requiremnts of marriage, with or without SSM, they can define it.

I'll go slowly so you understand that the government has the right to define liberties.

You can drive, but only as fast as they say you can.

You can buy property, but they define how much tax you pay on it.

You can vote, but they say where and how you must register.

You have freedom of speech, but you are still held for liable.

You can use a public restroom, but they can define which one (gender/sex is seperated here, showing it is different from race and ethnic protections).

You can buy and sell restricted properties (like liquor and pornography for example) but they get to say to whom.

If you meet the requiremnts of marriage, with or without SSM, they can define it.

And again, feel free to actually educate yourself on the difference between equal treatment and unequal treatment of adults. Start with articles about the fourteenth amendment. Then find a thread that is about these issues and go discuss it. This thread is only about what each individual poster recognizes as marriage.

EDIT: Nevermind, there are a thousand thread explaining this point. Go educate yourself on the fourteenth amendment and what it actually means and how DOMA very obviously violates Article IV. This isn't the thread to discuss it.

LOL, I love it when people say OBVIOUSLY I'm right, everyone knows it (then explain why it's not true)...

Marriage: Whatever the government in the country regulating it says it is.

I'll go slowly so you understand that the government has the right to define liberties.

You can drive, but only as fast as they say you can.

You can buy property, but they define how much tax you pay on it.

You can vote, but they say where and how you must register.

You have freedom of speech, but you are still held for liable.

You can use a public restroom, but they can define which one (gender/sex is seperated here, showing it is different from race and ethnic protections).

You can buy and sell restricted properties (like liquor and pornography for example) but they get to say to whom.

If you meet the requiremnts of marriage, with or without SSM, they can define it.
It's against the law to use the wrong bathroom in the States? :eek:

All the examples listed above are of a type where actions that affect the public are controlled, not private people.

I'll go slowly. If you say I as a man am allowed to marry you cannot pass a law that says that I can only marry a woman, this is a law that descriminates based on sex. It's quite simple. The argument "both men and women are allowed to marry the opposite sex" is the same argument as "both blacks and whites are allowed to marry within their own race". The second argument has been repeatedly struck down and so will be the first argument.

EDIT: Nevermind, there are a thousand thread explaining this point. Go educate yourself on the fourteenth amendment and what it actually means and how DOMA very obviously violates Article IV. This isn't the thread to discuss it.

Correct, inclusive discrimination is just as wrong as exclusive discrimination. And has been proven time and time again in the courts.

An argument towards rights, cannot limited by inclusiveness to groups; anymore than through exclusion of groups.

Any law or amendment which attempts to remove the rights of people to marry; or limit them based upon cursory criteria; (Sic. arguing "gays" can still marry into heterosexual relationships); is as illegal and invalid as laws which in past denied the rights of blacks and whites to marry inter-racially.

Such arguments were already defeated decades ago, before they were even made...

I live in Canada. I remember my mom, when I was very little, stating that a difference between us and the United States was that Canada's laws have a greater respect for the right to privacy. This right is not mentioned anywhere in documents in the States, as it is in Canada, but it does exist.

An interesting article: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm

Marriage --except in the case of someone like the Queen of England --is a private thing.

Correct, inclusive discrimination is just as wrong as exclusive discrimination. And has been proven time and time again in the courts.

An argument towards rights, cannot limited by inclusiveness to groups; anymore than through exclusion of groups.

Any law or amendment which attempts to remove the rights of people to marry; or limit them based upon cursory criteria; (Sic. arguing "gays" can still marry into heterosexual relationships); is as illegal and invalid as laws which in past denied the rights of blacks and whites to marry inter-racially.

Such arguments were already defeated decades ago, before they were even made...


So how do you define homosexual? Is it a gender or a race/ethnic group?

Silly people

LOL, I love it when people say OBVIOUSLY I'm right, everyone knows it (then explain why it's not true)...

Marriage: Whatever the government in the country regulating it says it is.

If you'd like to discuss this feel free. It has already been adequately discussed in the following thread -

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9202761&postcount=395
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9209274&postcount=554

Feel free to join in that discussion and stop hijacking my thread.

So how do you define homosexual? Is it a gender or a race/ethnic group?

Silly people
It's a relationship. A private relationship.

So how do you define homosexual? Is it a gender or a race/ethnic group?

Silly people

No, it's a sexuality and also protected. Do the research. Meanwhile would you like to post your view on the how marriage should be defined or are you here to hijack the thread?

No, it's a sexuality and also protected. Do the research. Meanwhile would you like to post your view on the how marriage should be defined or are you here to hijack the thread?

You know my view. One man, one woman.

You know my view. One man, one woman.

So even you don't think children are involved in marriage? Good to know.

LOL, I love it when people say OBVIOUSLY I'm right, everyone knows it (then explain why it's not true)...

Marriage: Whatever the government in the country regulating it says it is.

So marriage is not a fundamental right? Despite what the Supreme Court and the UN Charter of Human Rights say?

Tommorrow a US state can define marriage as only the union between two individuals of the same gender?

Or the same race?

My, how quickly we cut off our nose to spite our face.

I live in Canada. I remember my mom, when I was very little, stating that a difference between us and the United States was that Canada's laws have a greater respect for the right to privacy. This right is not mentioned anywhere in documents in the States, as it is in Canada, but it does exist.

An interesting article: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm

Marriage --except in the case of someone like the Queen of England --is a private thing.

Well, it is mentioned; in a way; but it is one of the most "violated" amendments of our Bill of Rights....

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That is, all rights enumerated are not an exclusive list of rights; but is an inclusive list, in addition to thers still non-enumerated.

The problem is, "America" as it exists today; and how the mentality of it's government operates; is not legitimate to it's core values and goals.

Predominately; the government in its core operation is only allowed those powers which it has been specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and only has it's "rights of grant" from that enumeration. Everything else, laying with the states, and more specifically the people.... PResently the system, and it's government views things in a manner which is, in fact, unconstitutional; That government possesses all powers EXCEPT those it has been specifically denied.

That is, the governments powers are those only inclusive to the constitution; and the people's rights are inclusive and exclusive to it..... While people like Ph33r have the entire concept bass-ackward, that the governments powers are inclusive and exlusive, and the people's are inclusive....

If you think the government has the power to do anything as long as it does not violate an enumerated right.... You've failed to read and comprehend the entire constitution.... The government only has the power to do that which the Constitution has granted it....

I do not support, and never will support, DOMA, or any semblance of it...

So how do you define homosexual? Is it a gender or a race/ethnic group?

Silly people

Gender....

So how do you define homosexual? Is it a gender or a race/ethnic group?

Silly people


Silly Greenlander, sophistry is for kids.

When you define marriage on the basis of gender, you are discriminating on the basis of gender. You thereby deny equal protection under the laws.

When you deny two adults the right to marry each other, you are denying them the fundamental right to marry. You thereby violate substantive due process.

Any questions?

Silly Greenlander, sophistry is for kinds.

When you define marriage on the basis of gender, you are discriminating on the basis of gender. You thereby deny equal protection under the laws.

When you deny two adults the right to marry each other, you are denying them the fundamental right to marry. You thereby violate substantive due process.

Any questions?

You misspelled kids.

Cat, did you notice that s/he has spent a week claiming that children are the basis for marriage and then didn't mention it in the definition. I think s/he reveals their true point in this one post. It was never about the children as s/he claimed. It's about discriminating against those evil homosexuals. I made sure to add that post to the 'In defense of families' thread.

I'll go slowly so you understand that the government has the right to define liberties.

You can drive, but only as fast as they say you can.

You can buy property, but they define how much tax you pay on it.

You can vote, but they say where and how you must register.

You have freedom of speech, but you are still held for liable.

You can use a public restroom, but they can define which one (gender/sex is seperated here, showing it is different from race and ethnic protections).

You can buy and sell restricted properties (like liquor and pornography for example) but they get to say to whom.

If you meet the requiremnts of marriage, with or without SSM, they can define it.

Cute.

I'm suprised to see marriage is no more important or sacred in your view than driving, buying liquor, or buying pornography.

Of course, you've just listed as "liberties" things that aren't fundamental rights.

You've ignored express Constitutional provisions allowing for some restrictions, like taxation.

You've also ignored the century or more of case law explaining the fine lines that apply here. Some restictions on a fundamental right are justifiable by a compelling state interest that necessitates a narrowly tailored restriction.

You've ignored that you cannot discriminate on the basis of gender regarding the right to vote, driving privileges, property ownership, buying, selling, or use of alcohol or pornogray, or freedom of speech.

Yep, I'd say that little rant was pretty ignorant.

It's against the law to use the wrong bathroom in the States? :eek:

All the examples listed above are of a type where actions that affect the public are controlled, not private people.

Actually, I think it gets prosecuted under 'indecent exposure' in most cases. There was a lawsuit a few months back about a transvestite getting arrested for using the women's loo in a club in Texas. If I remember right, that's what he/she (depending on if the person was transvestite or transgendered) was actually charged with.

So unless we agree with your beliefs about marriage, unless 'you approve' of our beliefs, we're pathetic. Good to know. Us judging what is acceptable? Pathetic. You judging what is acceptable and calling all others pathetic? Good. Glad that's settled. (Sarcasm intended)See how easy that was? Why didn't you understand it before?

Sarcasm also intended.

You are comparing apples to kangaroos.

I am not attempting to make it illegal for you to live your life the way you see fit, regardless of what I think of your choices. I am stating in strong terms what I think of someone elses lifestyle - but I am NOT trying to make it illegal for them to continue to live their life as they choose. That's an apple.

Those I am objecting to are working dilligently to pass laws, or keep laws in place, that prevent others from living their lives the way they want to, because the first group doesn't like what "those people" have choosen. That's a kangaroo.

Understanding that, as I have already said before, that a lifestyle choice that would physically harm someone is an exception. If I choose to decide that a marriage is only truly a marriage if "blessed" by a human sacrifice, that can't be accepted. However, if I choose to marry two birch trees and a can of seven-up, who is harmed if it is allowed?

Those I am objecting to are working dilligently to pass laws, or keep laws in place, that prevent others from living their lives the way they want to, because the first group doesn't like what "those people" have choosen. That's a kangaroo.

Then why did you object to Jocabia, who has never suggested that his opinion should be made law?

Understanding that, as I have already said before, that a lifestyle choice that would physically harm someone is an exception. If I choose to decide that a marriage is only truly a marriage if "blessed" by a human sacrifice, that can't be accepted. However, if I choose to marry two birch trees and a can of seven-up, who is harmed if it is allowed?

No one is harmed if it is allowed. However, it doesn't fall under the type of union which necessitates special protection by the government. Your can of seven-up and your birch trees can't sign a contract, can't own anything, can't have custody of children, etc. Thus, there is no place for them under the marriage laws. However, if you want to hold your little ceremony and say you guys are married - that's your perogative.

Then why did you object to Jocabia, who has never suggested that his opinion should be made law?

Actually, yes, I did. VAR asked about polygamy and I said it should be permitted and, certainly not illegal, but polygamist marriages should not receive the same protections under the law due to the potential for abuse. That one consenting adult may marry another consenting adult is protected by the constitution. However, being allowed to marry as many people as I want creates enourmous loopholes. Me and my buddy move to the US and gain citizenship. I marry his entire family and adopt their kids and he marries my entire family and adopts their kids and suddenly we are all legal citizens. I'm not suggesting it would occur, I'm just saying that there are greater issues to consider if marriage is just some open conglomeration of consenting adults. Or I'm in the mob. The entire mob gets completely intermarried into one big polygamist mass and now nobody can be forced to testify against anyone else. I was just pointing out that while no one should be discriminated against, there is a compelling interest to create limitations that are not based on any of the things that are protected by the fourteenth amendment.

See how easy that was? Why didn't you understand it before?

Sarcasm also intended.

You are comparing apples to kangaroos.

I am not attempting to make it illegal for you to live your life the way you see fit, regardless of what I think of your choices. I am stating in strong terms what I think of someone elses lifestyle - but I am NOT trying to make it illegal for them to continue to live their life as they choose. That's an apple.

Those I am objecting to are working dilligently to pass laws, or keep laws in place, that prevent others from living their lives the way they want to, because the first group doesn't like what "those people" have choosen. That's a kangaroo.

Understanding that, as I have already said before, that a lifestyle choice that would physically harm someone is an exception. If I choose to decide that a marriage is only truly a marriage if "blessed" by a human sacrifice, that can't be accepted. However, if I choose to marry two birch trees and a can of seven-up, who is harmed if it is allowed?

I never said I would make anything illegal. I believe polygamist marriages should be legal and considered acceptable but not receive the same protection under the law. See the above post and the one I wrote when you originally challenged the concept.

Your examples show that you have little or no understanding of a legal contract.

Your examples show that you have little or no understanding of a legal contract.
Hell! Who does?

:)

Actually, yes, I did. VAR asked about polygamy and I said it should be permitted and, certainly not illegal, but polygamist marriages should not receive the same protections under the law due to the potential for abuse. That one consenting adult may marry another consenting adult is protected by the constitution. However, being allowed to marry as many people as I want creates enourmous loopholes. Me and my buddy move to the US and gain citizenship. I marry his entire family and adopt their kids and he marries my entire family and adopts their kids and suddenly we are all legal citizens. I'm not suggesting it would occur, I'm just saying that there are greater issues to consider if marriage is just some open conglomeration of consenting adults. Or I'm in the mob. The entire mob gets completely intermarried into one big polygamist mass and now nobody can be forced to testify against anyone else. I was just pointing out that while no one should be discriminated against, there is a compelling interest to create limitations that are not based on any of the things that are protected by the fourteenth amendment.

I don't think the issue is really the "loopholes" so much as the fact that current marriage laws couldn't be applied to a conglomerate. They were specifically designed for two people and don't even make sense in the context of polygamy. How can 10 people each be your next-of-kin that makes medical decisions for you should you be incapacitated? What if they disagree?

Should polygamy be recognized by the law at all? Perhaps it could be - under the same type of law that rules corporations. A group of 10 people who wanted to marry each other could incorporate themselves, with a business plan stating that all or some percentage of the money from each of their jobs would go into an account to be used by the group - that property would be owned by the group, etc.

Then why did you object to Jocabia, who has never suggested that his opinion should be made law?



No one is harmed if it is allowed. However, it doesn't fall under the type of union which necessitates special protection by the government. Your can of seven-up and your birch trees can't sign a contract, can't own anything, can't have custody of children, etc. Thus, there is no place for them under the marriage laws. However, if you want to hold your little ceremony and say you guys are married - that's your perogative.

You can too leave money and properties to your pets. If some rich old hag leaves a million dollar estate to her 13 cats in a trust, she can do that.

What law is going to say that she can't 'marry' her cats, if marriage becomes nothing more that the joining of property rights etc., maybe she wants to do it so that they have heritance laws to protect them. Once you dissolve marriage from moral and religious AND children procreation, it's nothing but a contract and pets and animals can inherit properties already.

You can too leave money and properties to you pets.

Where did I say you can't? Oh wait! I didn't say that!

If some rich old hag leaves a million dollar estate to her 13 cats in a trust, she can do that.

And she has to designate a human being to control the trust.

What law is going to say that she can't 'marry' her cats,

Simple. The one that says only a competent adult human being can enter into a contract.

Once you dissolve marriage from moral and religious AND children procreation, it's nothing but a contract and pets and animals can inherit properties already.

Darling, legal marriage is a contract, plain and simple. Thus, there is no dissolution to be made.

Where did I say you can't? Oh wait! I didn't say that!



And she has to designate a human being to control the trust.



Simple. The one that says only a competent adult human being can enter into a contract.



Darling, legal marriage is a contract, plain and simple. Thus, there is no dissolution to be made.

Wills are legal contracts, Marriages are legal contracts, Business agreements use Contracts... If some PETA nincompoop comes along and wants to utilize marriage contracts to combine her properties and leave them as refuges for the animals that live there, what right to do you have to say she can't make them all her spouses and give them easy to gain legal recognition and rights that can't be achieved any other way?

One giant estate, what difference does it make if its a will, marriage or business arrangement?

I find it funny that you guys found Rabbit, who's even more outlandish than you guys and Jacobia of all people is a "separate but equal" entity for polygamy, :rolleyes: and you are saying that marriage contracts are somehow more or less valid than other legal contracts. :D


*grabs more popcorn ~ waiting to see what Rabbit says next :D *

Wills are legal contracts, Marraiges are legal contracts, Busniess agreements use Contracts... If some PETA nincompoop comes along and wants to utilize marriage contracts to combine her properties and leave them as refuges for the animals that live there, what right to do you have to say she can't make them all her spouses and give them easy to gain legal recognition and rights that can't be achieved any other way?
Let me bold the third line from that post for you:
"Simple. The one that says only a competent adult human being can enter into a contract."

If you'd like me to clarify why that is, here goes:
My understanding is that legal contracts are about consent. Animals cannot comprehend a contract, so they cannot consent to it.

Wills are legal contracts,

Between a person, the government, and the executor of the will.

Marriages are legal contracts,

Between two people and the government.

Business agreements use Contracts

Agreements made between a group of people who run those businesses.

... If some PETA nincompoop comes along and wants to utilize marriage contracts to combine her properties and leave them as refuges for the animals that live there, what right to do you have to say she can't make them all her spouses and give them easy to gain legal recognition and rights that can't be achieved any other way?

Cats can't sign contracts.

I find it funny that you guys found Rabbit, who's even more outlandish than you guys and Jacobia of all people is a "separate but equal" entity for polygamy,

This doesn't even make sense. What were you trying to say here?

Meanwhile, no one has posited a "separate but equal" entity for polygamy. Polygamy is an entirely different arrangement. Thus, it would get separate regulation.

Stating that polygamy can be governed by marriage laws is like stating that taxes can be governed by traffic laws.

and you are saying that marriage contracts are somehow more or less valid than other legal contracts.

Actually, I haven't said any such thing. Marriage contracts are exactly as valid as other legal contracts. The difference is that marriage contracts are governed more by laws than by a specific agreement drawn up for the occasion.

I never said I would make anything illegal. I believe polygamist marriages should be legal and considered acceptable but not receive the same protection under the law. See the above post and the one I wrote when you originally challenged the concept.

Your examples show that you have little or no understanding of a legal contract.My examples are meant to be humorous - not show off my understanding of legal contracts. I work with legal contracts on a day to day basis.

You just wrote two contradictory posts - in one you say you did say polygamy should not be legal, and here - you contradict that. ?

I'm not trying to defend polygamy - I'm trying to defend individual choices. My whole point is that laws should not be made based on the personal preference of any of us, or on the religious beliefs of any of us. Laws regarding personal choice should be limited to preventing ONLY those personal choices that would physically harm some one.

All other choices should remain valid, legal, choices. If two men want to get married, it should be legal. Sorry if the humor of two birch trees and a can of seven-up is over your head. Just assume the can of soda has sufficient intelligence to qualify under the law as a person - just as certain corporations do. Well, they qualify under the law as persons. Whether or not they have any intelligence remains in question.

As to a religious marriage ceremony - I leave that to the religious and the religions. If someone is a member of religion "A" and wants to marry their pencil, and religion "A" doesn't view marriage to a pencil as something they should bless - well, that's fine for religion "A". The someone in this example should go find religion "B" that does recognize marriage with a pencil.

But religion "A" should not try to make it illegal to marry a pencil. I kinda like my pencil.

I've got nothing against Jocabia personally - as long as he doesn't try to legislate his personal beliefs into laws that limit my choices (again, choices where harm will not come to anyone).

Wills are legal contracts, Marriages are legal contracts, Business agreements use Contracts... If some PETA nincompoop comes along and wants to utilize marriage contracts to combine her properties and leave them as refuges for the animals that live there, what right to do you have to say she can't make them all her spouses and give them easy to gain legal recognition and rights that can't be achieved any other way?

Cats can't be spouses.... Marriage is a contract... How does a cat enter a "contract" agreement, when it cannot make known it's consent?

You just wrote two contradictory posts - in one you say you did say polygamy should not be legal, and here - you contradict that. ?

No, he said that he doesn't think polygamy should be legally recognized as marriage, which makes sense - as the current marriage laws simply couldn't be made to apply to a larger group of people - it just wouldn't make sense.

However, he said that living in a polygamous relationship should not be illegal. People can make the choice to live in such a relationship if they see fit, and have whatever religious or social recognition of it that they can get.

But religion "A" should not try to make it illegal to marry a pencil. I kinda like my pencil.

And you could state that you are married to said pencil. However, there is no way that your union could be legally recognized, as a pencil cannot enter into a contract.

My definition of marriage: Two people committing to each other romantically (supposedly) for the rest of their lives and having their commitment recognized by their government.
Correct :)

Wills are legal contracts, Marriages are legal contracts, Business agreements use Contracts... If some PETA nincompoop comes along and wants to utilize marriage contracts to combine her properties and leave them as refuges for the animals that live there, what right to do you have to say she can't make them all her spouses and give them easy to gain legal recognition and rights that can't be achieved any other way?

One giant estate, what difference does it make if its a will, marriage or business arrangement?

I find it funny that you guys found Rabbit, who's even more outlandish than you guys and Jacobia of all people is a "separate but equal" entity for polygamy, :rolleyes: and you are saying that marriage contracts are somehow more or less valid than other legal contracts. :D


*grabs more popcorn ~ waiting to see what Rabbit says next :D *
Wow, you really don't understand contracts either. I'm not saying seperate but equal. I'm saying seperate and unequal. Number is not protected by the fourteenth amendment. The government can pass a law that in a one-person vehicle, one person is required to drive in the HOV lane and in all other vehicles two or more are required. What does that have to do with the fourteenth amendment? It doesn't. You're arguments get more outlandish by the minute.

And as far as legal contracts, a legal contract requires that all participants be either represented by an adult capable of consent in the contract or they must be an actual adult capable of consent. However there are some restrictions on this, like labor laws and marriage laws (in a marriage you must be of a certain age, old enough to understand the contract you are entering into, even with parental consent). Cats will never understand the contract they are entering into and thus cannot agree to the terms set forth, nor be granted the rights conveyed, by marriage. You and VAR can certainly understand this and I believe VAR has accepted this. You're being intentionally obtuse because your arguments aren't good enough to actually make a case so you're throwing up anything that prevents people from seeing right through you.

Correct :)
Cool, someone agrees with me! :D

My definition = Two people bound together for life by love, with the main objective of bringing another living being into life. This is not to say there can't be other objectives, such as wanting to spend your life with the other person, but the main point of marriage is to produce, and take care of as physically and mentally able to, a kid.

My definition = Two people bound together for life by love, with the main objective of bringing another living being into life. This is not to say there can't be other objectives, such as wanting to spend your life with the other person, but the main point of marriage is to produce, and take care of as physically and mentally able to, a kid.
So marriage is for forming a family unit? Glad to see you aren't opposed to gay marriage.

My examples are meant to be humorous - not show off my understanding of legal contracts. I work with legal contracts on a day to day basis.

You just wrote two contradictory posts - in one you say you did say polygamy should not be legal, and here - you contradict that. ?

No, I didn't. I said that it should not be illegal. It should also not be recognized under the government under current marriage law and nothing in current law or the Constitution requires it to be. Reading comprehension is your friend.

I'm not trying to defend polygamy - I'm trying to defend individual choices. My whole point is that laws should not be made based on the personal preference of any of us, or on the religious beliefs of any of us. Laws regarding personal choice should be limited to preventing ONLY those personal choices that would physically harm some one.

I'm all for individual choices, however, the government has a compelling interest to not give polygamy the same protections as a marriage involving two people. I could care less what people do behind closed doors. To be more specific, I think a polygamist should be allowed to marry one of his wives or husbands or her wives or husbands.

All other choices should remain valid, legal, choices. If two men want to get married, it should be legal. Sorry if the humor of two birch trees and a can of seven-up is over your head. Just assume the can of soda has sufficient intelligence to qualify under the law as a person - just as certain corporations do. Well, they qualify under the law as persons. Whether or not they have any intelligence remains in question.

As to a religious marriage ceremony - I leave that to the religious and the religions. If someone is a member of religion "A" and wants to marry their pencil, and religion "A" doesn't view marriage to a pencil as something they should bless - well, that's fine for religion "A". The someone in this example should go find religion "B" that does recognize marriage with a pencil.

But religion "A" should not try to make it illegal to marry a pencil. I kinda like my pencil.

I've got nothing against Jocabia personally - as long as he doesn't try to legislate his personal beliefs into laws that limit my choices (again, choices where harm will not come to anyone).

And again, marry away. Marry anyone and anything you please, but don't expect it to convey rights unto you or the pencil.

Current law does not allow for polygamy nor does anything in the constitution protect it.

NOTE: Many of my posts are snarky and I get that you're intentionally venturing into the ridiculous (though Greenlander didn't). My snarky comments are meant to harrass and humor you, but not to be taken seriously.

My definition = Two people bound together for life by love, with the main objective of bringing another living being into life. This is not to say there can't be other objectives, such as wanting to spend your life with the other person, but the main point of marriage is to produce, and take care of as physically and mentally able to, a kid.

Oh, great. Puppets.

Meanwhile, no one has posited a "separate but equal" entity for polygamy. Polygamy is an entirely different arrangement. Thus, it would get separate regulation.

Stating that polygamy can be governed by marriage laws is like stating that taxes can be governed by traffic laws.



LMAO MwHaHahahaha :D :p

Sure he did, Jacobia said they should be able to get married without the legal recognition...

I said what you said there once, about SSM contracts. It seems like a bunch of people around don't agree with that kind of thinking :eek:

LMAO MwHaHahahaha :D :p

I said that once about SSM contracts. It seems like a bunch of people don't agree with that kind of thinking :eek:

The difference being that two homosexual people who choose to live as a single entity are in the exact same position as two heterosexual people who choose to do so.

In other words, it is like applying the same speed limit to a Honda Civic and a Dodge Stratus. They are both vehicles, they both cause the same danger by driving too fast - so the same speed limit applies.

The difference being that two homosexual people who choose to live as a single entity are in the exact same position as two heterosexual people who choose to do so.

In other words, it is like applying the same speed limit to a Honda Civic and a Dodge Stratus. They are both vehicles, they both cause the same danger by driving too fast - so the same speed limit applies.

Sure they can.... But what's your argument for denying them group marriages? Or any other kind of marriage for that matter, just because you don't like it? What are you saying, the government has a right to define what marriage is for or something :p

LMAO MwHaHahahaha :D :p

Sure he did, Jacobia said they should be able to get married without the legal recognition...

I said what you said there once, about SSM contracts. It seems like a bunch of people around don't agree with that kind of thinking :eek:

Have you not heard of the fourteenth amendment or do you just choose to deny it's existence? It guarantees that if anyone has a right to a marriage between two people then every does. No one has ever established a right for more than two people to marry.

Have you not heard of the fourteenth amendment or do you just choose to deny it's existence? It guarantees that if anyone has a right to a marriage between two people then every does. No one has ever established a right for more than two people to marry.

Have you not heard yourself? Allowing equal but separate marriage contracts? LOL Perhaps we should go back to segregated schools too :p

Sure they can.... But what's your argument for denying them group marriages? Or any other kind of marriage for that matter, just because you don't like it? What are you saying, the government has a right to define what marriage is for or something :p

Can I deny you employment because of your religious beliefs? Nope. Can I deny you employment because you're white? Nope. Can I deny you employment because you're short? Nope. Can I deny you employment because you're homophobe and thus more than likely homosexual yourself? Nope(unless you display intolerance in the workplace). Can I deny twins employment because there is only one position? Yes. Can I deny you employment because you appear to not be able to read and understand an argument on the internet? Yes, because it's germaine to the job.

Sure they can.... But what's your argument for denying them group marriages? Or any other kind of marriage for that matter, just because you don't like it? What are you saying, the government has a right to define what marriage is for or something :p

I'm not denying them group marriages. I am simply pointing out that the current marriage laws could not possibly be applied to a group - as the group is an entirely different situation. As such, the "group marriage", should the government choose to recognize it as a legally binding arrangement, would need a set of laws all on its own.

Does everyone else here understand the fourteenth amendment? I realize that some people currently posting would like to deny its existence or pretend like they can say stupid things about it and then put :p at the end and think they don't sound stupid, but does everyone else understand that the fourteenth amendment means laws can specify the genders they apply to, but they can specify quantity.

I'm not denying them group marriages. I am simply pointing out that the current marriage laws could not possibly be applied to a group - as the group is an entirely different situation. As such, the "group marriage", should the government choose to recognize it as a legally binding arrangement, would need a set of laws all on its own.


Boy you sure sound a lot like me when I'm talking about SSM's, did you borrow my argument ;) You can be honest. :D

Boy you sure sound a lot like me when I'm talking about SSM's, did you borrow my argument ;) You can be honest. :D

See post #154.

Have you not heard of the fourteenth amendment or do you just choose to deny it's existence? It guarantees that if anyone has a right to a marriage between two people then every does. No one has ever established a right for more than two people to marry.

No it states:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

No need to establish such a right, as you suppose:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

There is no direct constitutional justification for denial of polygamous unions....

If a bisexual man or woman wants to marry another man and another woman; what justification do I have for denying them, if all parties consent to such?

The People's rights exist exclusive to the Constitution; and the Governments Powers exist inclusive to it..... No where was the government given the specific and express power to specify limiting the numbers of people who can enter into a single marrital contract...

Well, as further proof that when you don't have logic, reason, law, science, sociology or history on your side being annoying is an effective tool for killing an argument and driving people to stop listening, I'm headed out. Dem, Cat, have fun banging your head against the wall.

VAR, I'm not referring to you. I could tell you were being amusing and your arguments were reasonable though I disagree with them. Unlike some, you understand the significant difference between SSM and polygamy and their protection under current law.

Boy you sure sound a lot like me when I'm talking about SSM's, did you borrow my argument ;) You can be honest. :D

No, I didn't. The argument actually makes sense here. The difference being, of course, that there is no significant difference between the situation a man and a woman who marry find themselves in vs. the situation two men or two women who marry find themselves in. In those cases, the arrangement is the same, the only difference is the sex of those participating.

No, I didn't. The argument actually makes sense here. The difference being, of course, that there is no significant difference between the situation a man and a woman who marry find themselves in vs. the situation two men or two women who marry find themselves in. In those cases, the arrangement is the same, the only difference is the sex of those participating.

Dem, it was verbatim :D :p Exactly what I say about SSM's.

No it states:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Show me how defining a marriage as a union between two consenting adults violates the fourteenth amendment.

No need to establish such a right, as you suppose:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

There is no direct constitutional justification for denial of polygamous unions....

If a bisexual man or woman wants to marry another man and another woman; what justification do I have for denying them, if all parties consent to such?

The People's rights exist exclusive to the Constitution; and the Governments Powers exist inclusive to it..... No where was the government given the specific and express power to specify limiting the numbers of people who can enter into a single marrital contract...

Bisexuality does not require that you have a non-monogomous relationship or that you be with both sexes at the same time. Also, I agree that bisexuals should be allowed to enter a multiple-person marriage but that marriage will not receive and is not guaranteed to the same protection under the law. I have explained several times why the state has a considerable interest in limiting the parties involved in state-recognized marriage. What you do without the inherent benefits of marriage is up to you.

The government should not, in my opinion or legally can't, limit the number of people who may marry, however it need only recognize two. The federal government conveys rights onto individuals in a marriage. It need not convey those rights unto multiple individuals. Look at the list of rights conveyed by marriage and consider the implications of polygamy. The government has the ability to protect its interests.

Assumption of a spouse's pension - no potential for abuse there
Estate tax - no potential for abuse there
citizenship - no potential for abuse there
crime victim's recovery benefits - no potential for abuse there
Immunity from testifying against spouse - no potential for abuse there
Sick leave to care for partner - no potential for abuse there
Wrongful death benefits - no potential for abuse there
Social security benefits - no potential for abuse there
Veteran's benefits - no potential for abuse there.
Gift tax - no potential for abuse there

Ok, I'll stop the list and the sarcasm there. Or do I need to list all 1049 benefits inherent to a union of two people?

If a bisexual man or woman wants to marry another man and another woman; what justification do I have for denying them, if all parties consent to such?

You have no justification for not allowing them to marry - but there is ample justification for not recognizing their group as "married" under the law. The simple reason would be that there is no logical way to apply marriage laws to 3 people. You would run into problems left and right. However, should those three choose to enter into an agreement much like marriage, who's to stop them?

No where was the government given the specific and express power to specify limiting the numbers of people who can enter into a single marrital contract...

The laws themselves are designed for two people. As I pointed out before, what do we do when both (or all four, etc.) of a person's nexts-of-kin disagree on what to do when that person is incapacitated, or dies? If one person leaves the group, but 4 remain, does that one person still get half of what was theirs? What if one person is married to two people, but they are not married to each other. Who is next-of-kin? Does next-of-kinship get passed between them if someone dies?

In the end, the current marriage laws could not possibly be applied to a larger group. For polygamy to be legally recognized, a separate form of contract would have to be worked out.

Dem, it was verbatim :D :p Exactly what I say about SSM's.

Which is irrelevant.

I can say that my computer is a computer and yours is not, but it does not change the fact that they are actually both computers.

You can argue all you want that a homosexual couple who choose to live as a single entity are not in the same situation as a comparable heterosexual couple. It won't change the fact that their situation is exactly the same.

It's pretty obvious what it is currently, in the sense of the law. But ideally? The government should butt out of marriage all together. Marriage would be "The union of two or more people who call themselves married". Fin.

Which is irrelevant.

I can say that my computer is a computer and yours is not, but it does not change the fact that they are actually both computers.

You can argue all you want that a homosexual couple who choose to live as a single entity are not in the same situation as a comparable heterosexual couple. It won't change the fact that their situation is exactly the same.

Do you notice a distinct inverse relationship between the number of smileys and the basis in reality?

Marriage is the Divinely ordained process of two people of differing genders monogamously becoming one with each other physically, spiritually, emotionally and intellectually united under God.

Exactly.

Marriage is the union of two consenting adults, resulting in a multitude of legal rights and privledges. It may also have a religous meaning, depending on the couple's beliefs. Whether the couple is of opposite genders or the same gender does not, and should not, matter.

Marriage is the Divinely ordained process of two people of differing genders monogamously becoming one with each other physically, spiritually, emotionally and intellectually united under God.
...and then...
Exactly.Don't take offense, guys (gals?) but these are the people I don't want making laws. It's fine that they feel this way, and it's great if they belong to some religious group that believes this, and they all live happily ever after.

As long as they don't make it into a law.

Personally, I was married 26 years ago in a church to the same woman I'm married to now. We have 4 absolutely wonderful kids who are contributing to the world they live in.

But that doesn't give me the right to deny someone else a different choice. I can voice my opinion, but I would be ethically wrong, I believe, if I tried to make my choice the only legal choice.

Because one cannot live outside the government. If I disagree with a religious tenet, or some dogmatic decision, I can choose to live outside that particular religion. I can pick another one, or simply decide not to be a member of any religious group. Religious rules apply to those who decide to belong to the religious group that has them.

Laws apply to everyone. One cannot find a place on earth where laws do not apply. Yes, there are different governments in different places, but why should you have to leave the country because I got my choice, which happens to be abhorent to you, made into a law? You shouldn't.

This is one of the greatest things about the United States - the separation of church and state. We should be looking for ways to expand this right to freedom of choice as much as we can, not for ways to restrict choice.

[QUOTE=Very Angry Rabbits]What a short, sad, pathetic story your life is going to be.

Because I only wish to be married to a woman?
'Gee honey! Our lives have become short sad and pathetic... quick! Roll out the homosexual!



Wake up, folks. Your sadly thin, restricted, anemic definition of marriage simply does not apply to anyone except yourselves.

And how many would that be? :rolleyes:

What is it, exactly, that you are afraid of, that you are so desperately trying to prevent, by prohibiting marriages you don't approve of?

The downfall of western society.

And who, by the way, gives a damn if you approve?

Well you seem abit uptight.

The downfall of western society.

If the recognition of same-gender relationships causes the downfall of western civilization ...

then we crashed and burned thousands of years ago!!!

I'm not denying them group marriages. I am simply pointing out that the current marriage laws could not possibly be applied to a group - as the group is an entirely different situation. As such, the "group marriage", should the government choose to recognize it as a legally binding arrangement, would need a set of laws all on its own.

This one got me to thinking. It's not group contracts at all. If a man has a wife and then gets married again, it's two contracts, not one big one. The two women aren't married to each other, he's married to each individually, what if they don't even know about each other?

If he gets married to four women in four different states (or all in one state in a big house), and he is Muslim and claims that it's his religion to boot ... It isn't a group contract being talked about, it's four different one man one woman contracts, four times over.

ALL of the arguments for SSM will apply to him.

Governemnt has the right to define what constitutes a legal marriage AND they have to enforce it across state borders so it has to be federal, not up to state discretion. I still don't see how it matters how it is defined. But I surely can't see how some of you are saying SSM is okay but polygamy and other definitions are some sort of no - no when your own arguments for SSM come back into play as soon as you try to put up definitions and limits again.

One person signs a contract with another person, who are you to say how many times a person can do that?

If the recognition of same-gender relationships causes the downfall of western civilization ...

then we crashed and burned thousands of years ago!!!

Oh yes, many times over and over again. Human society has crashed lots of times.

This one got me to thinking. It's not group contracts at all. If a man has a wife, gets married again, it's two contracts. The two women aren't married to each other.

If He gets married to four women in four different state, and he is Muslim and claims it's his religion to boot...It isn't a group contract over and over again, It's four different one man one woman contracts four times over.

ALL of the arguments for SSM will apply to him.

Governemnt has the right to define what constitutes a legal marriage AND they have to enforce it across state borders so it has to be federal, not up to state discretion. I still don't see how it matters how it is defined. But I surely can't see how some of you are saying SSM is okay but polygamy and other definitions are some sort of no - no when your own arguments for SSM come back into play as soon as you try to put up definitions and limits again.

One person signs a contract with another person, who are you to say how many times a person can do that?

So you can come up with no distinction between polygamy and same-gender marriage?

What distinctions are there between what you consider civil marriage and same-gender marriage?

What distinctions are there between what you consider civil marriage and polygamy?

Think hard. ;)

So you can come up with no distinction between polygamy and same-gender marriage?

What distinctions are there between what you consider civil marriage and same-gender marriage?

What distinctions are there between what you consider civil marriage and polygamy?

Think hard. ;)


There's no difference, at all, I'll let you discribe it, but you would only limit how many times I can do it? What's your point?

You say everyone can have one, and only have another if they get divorced...Why? who are you to say that I can only join into one agreement? Why not two or fifteen agreements with as many individuals as want to sign them individually with me? If I have one two-person contract (name any type you want) what does exclusivity have to do with it?

There's no difference, at all, I'll let you discribe it, but you would only limit how many times I can do it? What's your point?

You say everyone can have one, and only have another if they get divorced...Why? who are you to say I can join into two or fifteen agreements with as individuals t want to sign with me? If I have one two-person contract (name any type you want) what does exclusivity have to do with it?

OK, then I guess you are in favor of polygamy. There is no difference between it and your definition of civil marriage. Go figure. :p


(BTW, exclusivity is not at all uncommon in contracts.)

OK, then I guess you are in favor of polygamy. There is no difference between it and your definition of civil marriage. Go figure. :p


(BTW, exclusivity is not at all uncommon in contracts.)


True about that last part, but then, I wouldn't (under the described hypothetical reasons above) agree to exclusivity now would I?

I'm positive that they would all be constitutional. However, unlike you, I do think government has the right to describe and define what they will recognize as legal union (SSM or Polygamy or even limiting it to only people who not only want to, but will, procreate, even under penalty of annulment of government recognition of the marriage and retraction of said benefits if no children are produced by the union after so-and-so period of time).

Government recognition of a benefit (like marriage or welfare or driving rights) can come with lots of stipulations and regulations, nothing about it is against the 14th amendment that you seem to like to protest so much about.


EDIT: p.s., I don't mean to say they should do those things, only that I think they can.

True about that last part, but then, I wouldn't (under the described hypothetical reasons above) agree to exclusivity now would I?

I'm positive that they would all be constitutional. However, unlike you, I do think government has the right to describe and define what they will recognize as legal union (SSM or Polygamy or even limiting it to only people who not only want to, but will, procreate, even under penalty of annulment of government recognition of the marriage and retraction of said benefits if no children are produced by the union after so-and-so period of time).

Government recognition of a benefit (like marriage or welfare or driving rights) can come with lots of stipulations and regulations, nothing about it is against the 14th amendment that you seem to like to protest so much about.

EDIT: p.s., I don't mean to say they shoud do those things, only that I think they can.

Small problem. As I've already explained in this thread, marriage isn't a benefit, it is a right.

Marriage is a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html ), 388 US 1, 12 (1967) ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).")

:eek:

EDIT: Also, even with a benefit, the equal protection clause still applies. A denial of the benefit based on an invidious criteria like gender is presumptively wrong.

This one got me to thinking. It's not group contracts at all. If a man has a wife and then gets married again, it's two contracts, not one big one. The two women aren't married to each other, he's married to each individually, what if they don't even know about each other?

There is an obvious problem here.

By US law, every single one of those women are his next-of-kin. Every single one gets all of his stuff if he dies without a will - tax-free. Every single one gets to make medical decisions for him should be become incapacitated (with no way to differentiate between them if they disagree).

These are the sorts of reasons that the government has a compelling interest in not recognizing more than one marriage.

And if they don't even know about one another, then the man has broken faith with all of them - and each of them is entitled to an incredibly large chunk (over half) of what he owns, as adultery is cause for divorce proceedings going in their direction.

Small problem. As I've already explained in this thread, marriage isn't a benefit, it is a right.

Marriage is a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html ), 388 US 1, 12 (1967) ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).")

:eek:

Then... government can say... you must be at least 65 years old to apply for a marriage license and of fully functioning mind and registers seven years prior to the actual wedding date...

None of the stipulations in the right to get married would be broken. Only that the regulations around it are merely impossible to manage and the legislature that approved it would be quickly voted out of office and replaced and the law rescinded, but the law is not in essence unconstitutional. You can apply of lots of retiree benefits in and outside of the government that nobody has ever claimed were unconstitutionally given only to the elderly. Marriage could be applied similarly and remain a right of everyone.

Government recognition of a benefit (like marriage or welfare or driving rights) can come with lots of stipulations and regulations, nothing about it is against the 14th amendment that you seem to like to protest so much about.

It can come with stipulations and regulations - but not ones based on race, creed, color, gender, or sexual orientation - unless a compelling interest can be brought up.

There is no compelling state interest in denying equal marriage protection to homosexual couples - who are living in the same conditions as their heterosexual counterparts.

There is an obvious problem here.

By US law, every single one of those women are his next-of-kin. Every single one gets all of his stuff if he dies without a will - tax-free. Every single one gets to make medical decisions for him should be become incapacitated (with no way to differentiate between them if they disagree).

These are the sorts of reasons that the government has a compelling interest in not recognizing more than one marriage.

And if they don't even know about one another, then the man has broken faith with all of them - and each of them is entitled to an incredibly large chunk (over half) of what he owns, as adultery is cause for divorce proceedings going in their direction.

No, that’s not a problem. That's no different than an elderly man with four children, all equally his own and all equally entitled to the same properties. The law seems to be able to manage equally dividing the property for a different number of heirs now, it can do it regardless of why they are heirs (spouses or offspring, children etc.). And it can have a hierarchy to the amounts of benefits, like, spouses get two parts each and adult children get one part each, as the case of an unwilled estate case may require.


He hasn't broken faith with any of them unless their contracts with him stipulate that he needs to tell them. And if it's legal, why would they get to sue him for it if he didn't break his contract with them?

Then... government can say... you must be at least 65 years old to apply for a [religion] and of fully functioning mind and registers seven years prior to the actual [worship] date...

None of the stipulations in the right to [free exercise of religion] would be broken. Only that the regulations around it are merely impossible to manage and the legislature that approved it would be quickly voted out of office and replaced and the law rescinded, but the law is not in essence unconstitutional. You can apply of lots of retiree benefits in and outside of the government that nobody has ever claimed were unconstitutionally given only to the elderly. [Religion] could be applied similarly and remain a right of everyone.

You really don't understand rights and equality at all, do you? Particularly not as protected by the Constitution.

Perhaps the above will help illustrate the flaws in your thinking.

You really don't understand rights and equality at all, do you? Particularly not as protected by the Constitution.

Perhaps the above will help illustrate the flaws in your thinking.


Your right to get married has the same connotations as religion? That makes no sense and you know it, I don't have to register for a license to worship.

No, that’s not a problem. That's no different than an elderly man with four children, all equally his own and all equally entitled to the same properties. The law seems to be able to manage equally dividing the property for a different number of heirs now, it can do it regardless of why they are heirs (spouses or offspring, children etc.). And it can have a hierarchy to the amounts of benefits, like, spouses get two parts each and adult children get one part each, as the case of an unwilled estate case may require.

He hasn't broken faith with any of them unless their contracts with him stipulate that he needs to tell them. And if it's legal, why would they get to sue him for it if he didn't break his contract with them?

You really don't understand the areas of law to which you are trying to analogize. Take a class in contracts and wills and estates. Then try again.

But I'm glad you've reduced marriage to merely a contract. Nothing sacred about it. Other than a feeble appeal to "majority rule," you have basis for objection to same-gender marriage.

No, that’s not a problem. That's no different than an elderly man with four children, all equally his own and all equally entitled to the same properties. The law seems to be able to manage equally dividing the property for a different number of heirs now, it can do it regardless of why they are heirs (spouses or offspring, children etc.). And it can have a hierarchy to the amounts of benefits, like, spouses get two parts each and adult children get one part each, as the case of an unwilled estate case may require.

Actually, it is different. The law does not stipulate, for instance, that each one of his children gets all of his stuff - tax-free. The law does not hold that each of his assets and his debts already belong to the children as well. The law does not hold that each of his children have power-of-attorney.

And, just so you know, in an unwilled estate currently - the spouse will get everything - because they are seen as already owning it - in the joint entity that is a marriage.

He hasn't broken faith with any of them unless their contracts with him stipulate that he needs to tell them. And if it's legal, why would they get to sue him for it if he didn't break his contract with them?

(a) It has nothing to do with needing to tell them. Divorce cases have taken adultery into account for as long as there have been divorces - and he would have been clearly committing adultery on every single woman he was married to.

(b) Who said anything about suing him? By virtue of being married to him - and being a single entity under the law, they are entitled to the stuff that they each equally own should they choose to get a divorce (which any woman finding out that her husband had 3 other secret wives would probably jump to do).


We aren't talking about some imaginary contract you have made up here. We are talking about a marriage license.

Your right to get married has the same connotations as religion? That makes no sense and you know it, I don't have to register for a license to worship.

:headbang:

They are both fundamental rights and thereby protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, sparky.

I can explain the difference. Can you?

Actually, it is different. The law does not stipulate, for instance, that each one of his children gets all of his stuff - tax-free. The law does not hold that each of his assets and his debts already belong to the children as well. The law does not hold that each of his children have power-of-attorney.

And, just so you know, in an unwilled estate currently - the spouse will get everything - because they are seen as already owning it - in the joint entity that is a marriage.



(a) It has nothing to do with needing to tell them. Divorce cases have taken adultery into account for as long as there have been divorces - and he would have been clearly committing adultery on every single woman he was married to.

(b) Who said anything about suing him? By virtue of being married to him - and being a single entity under the law, they are entitled to the stuff that they each equally own should they choose to get a divorce (which any woman finding out that her husband had 3 other secret wives would probably jump to do).


We aren't talking about some imaginary contract you have made up here. We are talking about a marriage license.

There's no adultery to speak of in this case at all, there is simply numerous wives. The Wives all share equally in parts, instead of winning it all like a sole lottery ticket. It's not that hard to imagine percentages and shares.

If the recognition of same-gender relationships causes the downfall of western civilization ...

then we crashed and burned thousands of years ago!!!

Well yeah, could be the reason why the Roman empire fell, not so much homosexuality, but a huge lapse in morality, that caused other values to fall.
Personally I give our 'western empire' less than fifty years.

There's no adultery to speak of in this case at all, there is simply numerous wives. The Wives all share equally in parts, instead of winning it all like a sole lottery ticket. It's not that hard to imagine percentages and shares.

There is adultery involved, because he cheated on each of them by having another lover. It isn't that hard to understand.

And as for "equally in parts", you already stated that this is not what they agreed to (in fact, you stated that they each have marriage licenses with him - which would make this obvious). Is it hard to imagine such a union? No. Is it possible under a marriage license? No.

And how exactly do you "share equally in parts" in a next-of-kinship or power-of-attorney? Are you suggesting they take turns?

There is adultery involved, because he cheated on each of them by having another lover. It isn't that hard to understand.

And as for "equally in parts", you already stated that this is not what they agreed to (in fact, you stated that they each have marriage licenses with him - which would make this obvious). Is it hard to imagine such a union? No. Is it possible under a marriage license? No.

And how exactly do you "share equally in parts" in a next-of-kinship or power-of-attorney? Are you suggesting they take turns?

I think you are letting your religious opinion influence your thinking here. When did I say anything about what the marriage agreements said? If, he gets married in different states, the different marriage licenses may have different divorce stipulations or property agreements etc., but I don't see how you can keep saying no. That's not an argument for the rest of us, it's only an argument for why you shouldn't get married without an exclusivity clause in it. It's not legal for SSM in most states now, but we can discuss what it means if it becomes legal across the nation. The same case here.

So some rules will have to be changed or altered to fit, but what right do you have to say that me and my wife can't get married? Even if I already have two other wives, it’s none of your business, and I even have the first amendment to help secure my religious practice rights? Each marriage license is a one on one contract that my wives individually agree to...

I fail to see your legal or secular objection.


EDIT: forgot to mention the property and power-of-attorney stuff. If they are in different states, each wife controls her own assets (in that state obviously) and anything above and beyond would have to be liquidated or bought off by one to the others, like inheritance rules for adult children have to do now.

:headbang:

They are both fundamental rights and thereby protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, sparky.

I can explain the difference. Can you?


Nope, I can't say as I can explain the legal difference between them, but I know that they can charge me a license fee for one and the other is tax free LOL. :p But I'm open to reading it if you don't need to go over-board with it



Anyway, you probably should try to cut down on the name calling mockery, it's not called for here, we are discussing and debating, not fighting as far as I’m aware of. Besides, I'm likely older than you are anyway so you should at least be respectful of your elders even when you disagree with them. ;)

*snip*
Anyway, you probably should try to cut down on the name calling mockery, it's not called for here, we are discussing and debating, not fighting as far as I’m aware of. Besides, I'm likely older than you are anyway so you should at least be respectful of your elders even when you disagree with them. ;)

How old are you claiming to be?

Anyway, you probably should try to cut down on the name calling mockery, it's not called for here, we are discussing and debating, not fighting as far as I’m aware of.

Sadly a valued product here of his generation.

How old are you claiming to be?

Not terribly old, just guessing that you're in your thirties or so. I'm middle aged, wife, two kids, mortgage... forty-something, Served during the Reagan years etc., etc., etc.... bottom end of the baby boomers I suppose.

Sadly a valued product here of his generation.

LOL. How old are you claiming to be?

LOL. How old are you claiming to be?

Older and wiser than you sonny.

Older and wiser than you sonny.

The first is possible, but I'm on the older end of posters on these forums.

The second is demonstrably false.

Just a note: I've read throught this entire - incredibly informative and entertaining - thread, and I'd like to do a quick impression of just about 80% of Jocabia's posts.

"You really don't understand contract laws at all, do you? Read the fourteenth amendment!"

I must admit, after reading that same statement over, and over, and over... even I'm thinking of spending an evening reviewing the U.S. constitution. And hell, I'm Canadian!

I believe that marriage is a word, "irregardless" (how'd you like that throwback to the beginning of the thread, huh?) of it's history, that is in the public domain, and therefore, needs no special "protection" from government in regards to its use (i.e. DOMA... please don't lecture me on the necessity of marriage laws, however, I recognize their importance... I've read enough of that tonight).

So, therefore, I believe the word marriage legally should mean a union between two consenting adults in ownership of property and custody over children of dependency age - or at least, that's my working definition... still got to iron out those kinks in regards to polygomy (between mobsters not being forced to testify against each other and all of Nigera getting married to one American to become U.S. citizens).

Damn those mobsters abusing marriage law like that, though, there'd be one hilarious wedding ceremony.

Hmmm, perhaps I’m mistaken and you’re really a long haired fifty something, left behind hippy lawyer living in some south pacific commune of some sort? (I admit that this sounded like pure insult, but I only mean it as pure stereotyping :p for comedic relief :D )

Toronto Island,


Yes, quite. :p :D


Imagining a marriage to Nigeria. :fluffle: x 13,000,000 times. :eek: LOL

Hmmm, perhaps I’m mistaken and you’re really a long haired fifty something, left behind hippy lawyer living in some the south pacific commune of some sort? (I admit that this sounded like pure insult, but I only mean it as pure stereotyping :p for comedic relief :D )

Nope. And no insult taken.

I could be wrong, but I doubt Ugochucka is as old as either of us. (And there are relatively few posters of our age or older on these forums.)

Not terribly old, just guessing that you're in your thirties or so. I'm middle aged, wife, two kids, mortgage... forty-something, Served during the Reagan years etc., etc., etc.... bottom end of the baby boomers I suppose.

Cool.

But you have to do better than that to play the "respect your elders" card.

Sounds like you are only a few years older than I am. I've been married for almost 15 years. I have a mortgage of about $400,000.

I respect your age and experience, but I respect knowledge and logic and wisdom more.

I respect your age and experience, but I respect knowledge and logic and wisdom more.

No argument from me there...


So what was the difference anyway? Between the types of rights, you sounded like you had a secret or something, perhaps you'd like to share with the rest of the class?

Just a note: I've read throught this entire - incredibly informative and entertaining - thread, and I'd like to do a quick impression of just about 80% of Jocabia's posts.

"You really don't understand contract laws at all, do you? Read the fourteenth amendment!"

I must admit, after reading that same statement over, and over, and over... even I'm thinking of spending an evening reviewing the U.S. constitution. And hell, I'm Canadian!

I believe that marriage is a word, "irregardless" (how'd you like that throwback to the beginning of the thread, huh?) of it's history, that is in the public domain, and therefore, needs no special "protection" from government in regards to its use (i.e. DOMA... please don't lecture me on the necessity of marriage laws, however, I recognize their importance... I've read enough of that tonight).

So, therefore, I believe the word marriage legally should mean a union between two consenting adults in ownership of property and custody over children of dependency age - or at least, that's my working definition... still got to iron out those kinks in regards to polygomy (between mobsters not being forced to testify against each other and all of Nigera getting married to one American to become U.S. citizens).

Damn those mobsters abusing marriage law like that, though, there'd be one hilarious wedding ceremony.

Interesting thoughts.

I'd recommend Findlaw (http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/) for anyone wanting to understand the Constitution.

No one should feel the need to read the entire annotations, just the parts about which you are most curious. The annotations are fairly dense, but you can usually find one pretty specific to the question at hand. Given the complexity of constitutional law, the annotations are relatively pithy.

EDIT: Far easier to digest (and thereby less accurate, but still good) and helpful is exploring Constitutional Law (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html).

No argument from me there...

So what was the difference anyway? Between the types of rights, you sounded like you had a secret or something, perhaps you'd like to share with the rest of the class?

No secret.

Nor did I mean to imply a difference in the kind of rights per se. Only that there is a difference between requiring a license to get married and requiring a license to worship. Sorry if I was confusing about that.

When there exists a real and appreciable impact on, or a significant interference with the exercise of the fundamental right a government regulation must be supported by a compelling state purpose and whether the means chosen to accomplish that purpose are narrowly tailored.

I think it is pretty obvious how a marriage license for government recognition of your marriage survives this test, but a worship license would not. (Which did make my analogy a bit flawed.)

Note that a gender classification is suspect and must also survive heightened scrutiny.

So a gender classification used to deny a fundamental right is doubly offensive -- much like the ban on interracial marriage discussed in Loving v. Virginia.

No secret.


Damn, I was hoping for a little tricky insight there :D


When there exists a real and appreciable impact on, or a significant interference with the exercise of the fundamental right a government regulation must be supported by a compelling state purpose and whether the means chosen to accomplish that purpose are narrowly tailored.

Note that a gender classification is suspect and must also survive heightened scrutiny.

So a gender classification used to deny a fundamental right is doubly offensive -- much like the ban on interracial marriage discussed in Loving v. Virginia.

Interracial marriage has a secondary objection, compared to SSM, though. You can't prove what 'race' a person is, to regulate it, heritage yes, race no. A person willingly admits, or assigns, themselves a sexual orientation in society though (not to say what causes it or why it exists, that's irrelevant to what I'm saying). I can find various genetic proofs and evidences to show in a court room that says that there is no such thing as human races, no genetic species separation whatsoever, that all humans are humans and that we are all same species, so racial separation of marriage was and is a myth applied entirely in error to begin with.

But, ~ adversely, I can prove that some are right handed and some are left handed. And I can get them to admit this publicly as well. And sexual orientation, one will say, I'm heterosexual, or one will say, I'm homosexual etc., and that can be used to define us. However, this in itself does not separate us as different groups according to the law, nor needing different legal protections (right handed or left handed being irrelevant).

But If I say only left-handed people can apply for so-and-so license, it is without a doubt discrimination. But if I say, everyone must sign this agreement with their left hand, it's not a discrimination, it’s a stipulation.

A fishing license meets certain criteria. Age, season, fish species, fish size, etc., all for the sake of being able to preserve fish for next season.

If government regulates marriage license, it only has to argue why, assuming the "what" part is addressed in the why part ~ some crazy reason why only old people can get it etc., and only left handed signatures being required, and it would all be constitutional (even in regards to the 14th amendment) if a sufficient reason ‘why’ is given.

The first is possible, but I'm on the older end of posters on these forums.
The second is demonstrably false.

How so?

How so?

I'm familiar with the Constitution. Apparently you aren't.

I know the difference between a pedophile and a child molester. You don't.

The evidence is in your posts.

BTW, you still didn't claim any particular age. Not that I would necessarily believe you, but what age do you claim to be? What level of education?

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]I'm familiar with the Constitution. Apparently you aren't.

Yeah well, we cant all be American.

I know the difference between a pedophile and a child molester. You don't.

A child molester is a pedophile.

The evidence is in your posts.

You discredit my posts primarily because you have an opposite polar view to my own, not because they are wrong.



BTW, you still didn't claim any particular age. Not that I would necessarily believe you, but what age do you claim to be? What level of education?

I'll tell you, when you provide your own first.

You discredit my posts primarily because you have an opposite polar view to my own, not because they are wrong.

On somethings you are simply wrong. Up is not down. Night is not Day. You are wrong.

I'll tell you, when you provide your own first.

I've already given my age range, you long I've been married, and the extend of my mortgage in my exchange with Ph33rdom.

Are you a fairy prince? Must I ask thee thrice to compell an answer?

Here goes number 3: How old to you claim to be? What is your education?

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]On somethings you are simply wrong. Up is not down. Night is not Day. You are wrong.

Where?


I've already given my age range, you long I've been married, and the extend of my mortgage in my exchange with Ph33rdom.

OK, my age range is in the upper end of posters here too, thats what you said as well.



Here goes number 3: How old to you claim to be? What is your education?

You havent given your own education level yet, but you expect me to provide you my own?

[QUOTE]
Where?

OK, my age range is in the upper end of posters here too, thats what you said as well.

You havent given your own education level yet, but you expect me to provide you my own?

Fine, I am 36. I have been married for 15 years. I have a BS is political science and philosophy. I have a J.D. and have been practicing law for 8 years. I own my own 5-bedroom home with a $400,000 mortgage.

Now, please post your true age and education level.

[QUOTE=Ugochocka]
Fine, I am 36. I have been married for 15 years. I have a BS is political science and philosophy. I have a J.D. and have been practicing law for 8 years. I own my own 5-bedroom home with a $400,000 mortgage.
Now, please post your true age and education level.

I am also 36, never married, have absolutely no schooling past yr ten, meaning degrees etc and currently live in a backpackers.

sorry i only just started reading this but what the hell has a discussion on the definition of marriage got to do with how big your mortgage is,

my definition although given the terms of value you seem to be placing on peoples opinions is of no value what so ever as i am unmarried very young and have no mortgage, would be 2 people commiting to spend the rest of their lives together and support eachother in anyway needed by the other.

Quote:
[QUOTE=Very Angry Rabbits]What a short, sad, pathetic story your life is going to be.


Because I only wish to be married to a woman?
'Gee honey! Our lives have become short sad and pathetic... quick! Roll out the homosexual! No – because you're in the habit of closing yourself off from the variety that is the spice of life. Who and how you choose to marry – not in question, whatever floats your boat. Insisting that your way is the only way, and any attempts to put that into law – sad, pathetic

Quote:
Wake up, folks. Your sadly thin, restricted, anemic definition of marriage simply does not apply to anyone except yourselves.


And how many would that be? Everyone and anyone who attempts to prohibit others from making lifestyle choices outside the sad, thin, restricted, anemic definition that the same Everyone and anyone is trying to ensure is the only legal option. Pick a number from 1 to a zillion.
Quote:
What is it, exactly, that you are afraid of, that you are so desperately trying to prevent, by prohibiting marriages you don't approve of?


The downfall of western society.A little over the top there, aren’t you, chum? If the western society (say, perhaps you meant “Western Civilization”? ;) ) you are afraid is going to fall down is that dependent on that restricted a definition of marriage, then let it go. Freedom of choice is the cornerstone of Western Civilization. All the way back to the Greeks – and check out some of the choices they made. What’s more, what’s wrong with Eastern Civilization? Sarcasm aside, my point is CHOICE and VARIETY – with harm to others being the only thing to prohibit a choice of lifestyle.
Quote:
And who, by the way, gives a damn if you approve?


Well you seem abit uptight.Not with your choice of lifestyle, or who/how you choose to marry. As stated before, I am a heterosexual male married (in a church) to the same wonderful woman for 26 years, with 4 incredible kids.

I’m concerned with anyone who tries to legislate their lifestyle choices into the only legally acceptable lifestyle choice. If a choice won’t HARM someone, then it should not be illegal.

The sad, pathetic, etc, is NOT aimed at the particular lifestyle choice someone makes – it’s aimed at the narrow thinking of those who believe that their choice is the only viable choice, and go about making other choices illegal.

Actually, it is different. The law does not stipulate, for instance, that each one of his children gets all of his stuff - tax-free. The law does not hold that each of his assets and his debts already belong to the children as well. The law does not hold that each of his children have power-of-attorney.

And, just so you know, in an unwilled estate currently - the spouse will get everything - because they are seen as already owning it - in the joint entity that is a marriage.



(a) It has nothing to do with needing to tell them. Divorce cases have taken adultery into account for as long as there have been divorces - and he would have been clearly committing adultery on every single woman he was married to.

(b) Who said anything about suing him? By virtue of being married to him - and being a single entity under the law, they are entitled to the stuff that they each equally own should they choose to get a divorce (which any woman finding out that her husband had 3 other secret wives would probably jump to do).


We aren't talking about some imaginary contract you have made up here. We are talking about a marriage license.I would suggest that when making an argument based on law, you specify the laws of what country (or, if the US, what state) you are basing your argument on. In this case, you would be right in many countries and states, and wrong in others, regarding who is/are the legal heirs when someone dies intestate.

Define - Marriage

A union or partnership between two consenting adults. Period!

A union or partnership between two consenting adults. Period!For the sake of argument...and we are arguing here...

1. Only 2?
2. How old is "adult"?
3. What constitutes "consent"?
4. ;)

For the sake of argument...and we are arguing here...

1. Only 2?
2. How old is "adult"?
3. What constitutes "consent"?
4. ;)


I call strawman!

Union between 1 MAN and 1 Woman.. Period . it isnt for the betterment of anyone for anyones family that 2 men or 2 women be married and allowed to adopt. that child would be warped and destined for a life of ridicule and teasing. its not good for anyone. why do you think Sodom was destroyed anyway/? Homosexuals.

Union between 1 MAN and 1 Woman.. Period . it isnt for the betterment of anyone for anyones family that 2 men or 2 women be married and allowed to adopt. that child would be warped and destined for a life of ridicule and teasing. its not good for anyone. why do you think Sodom was destroyed anyway/? Homosexuals.Got a rather limited viewpoint there, dontcha?

Why are there so many people who make up their mind, and then insist that everyone else has to agree or be wrong? There continues to be more than one way to skin a cat...what ever cat needs skinnin'. What is so wrong with letting others choose their own lifestyle, so long as it brings no one physical harm? (Note to religious fanatics who have their minds made up for them by their "church" (or synagogue, or mosque, or what-have-you): Please view that as a rhetorical question).

I will not be responding to any indignant religious outbursts that may result from this post - those folks have already made up their mind, and are now busy trying to make up yours and mine - by law, if they can get away with it.

On the other hand, I would certainly consider replying to any response that is actually indicative of thought, and not a regurgitation of dogma.

Union between 1 MAN and 1 Woman.. Period . it isnt for the betterment of anyone for anyones family that 2 men or 2 women be married and allowed to adopt. that child would be warped and destined for a life of ridicule and teasing. its not good for anyone. why do you think Sodom was destroyed anyway/? Homosexuals.

personally i dont agree with gay marriage, but the reasons you are giving are utterly ridiculous, if two people of the same gender want to raise a child it does not mean that the child will grow up warped

in your reference to the destruction of sodom you are sadly mistaken as to the reasons, there is absolutely no indication in biblical teaching that being homosexual is in itself wrong, with regards to homosexual activity that is viewed in much the same way as all sex outside of marriage.

for everyone on here i would like to say that most christains including me do independantly think through their beliefs and it is sad that because of a few bigoted loud mouths all christianity is tarred with the same brush of being condemning of others rather than what christianity actually biblically is which is loving and accepting of others

Show me how defining a marriage as a union between two consenting adults violates the fourteenth amendment.

I never said it does; But also, defining a marriage as being between a number of consenting adults (more than two) doesn't either...


Bisexuality does not require that you have a non-monogomous relationship or that you be with both sexes at the same time. Also, I agree that bisexuals should be allowed to enter a multiple-person marriage but that marriage will not receive and is not guaranteed to the same protection under the law. I have explained several times why the state has a considerable interest in limiting the parties involved in state-recognized marriage. What you do without the inherent benefits of marriage is up to you.

Violation; it must recieve equal protection... That is required by the 14th.


The government should not, in my opinion or legally can't, limit the number of people who may marry, however it need only recognize two. The federal government conveys rights onto individuals in a marriage. It need not convey those rights unto multiple individuals. Look at the list of rights conveyed by marriage and consider the implications of polygamy. The government has the ability to protect its interests.

Well, is the government required to operate under "equal protection" or isn't it.... Make up your mind.... If the government can't legally limit the number; then it also cannot refuse recognition based upon it's own arbitrary (and unconstitutional, since it has never been conveyed such power) limitation of such....


Assumption of a spouse's pension - no potential for abuse there

Divided equally, like is already done... Pensions are many times divided between spouses, and then cursory to children... Many times it operates to give 50% to the spouse, and 50% divded between the number of children; So in the case of two spouces; 33% to each of the two spouces; and 33% divided equally between the kids...


Estate tax - no potential for abuse there

Same thing...


citizenship - no potential for abuse there

I can "make" citizens, merely by going oversees and getting women pregnant; don't see much of a difference... Besides; I see no reason for the government to limit the ability of foreigners to become citizens...


crime victim's recovery benefits - no potential for abuse there

Same issue as Pension and Estate...


Immunity from testifying against spouse - no potential for abuse there

Actually, it's not immunity... No one is "immune"; it is in fact inadmissability, not merely immunity... Though I do not agree with the judicial stance of Spousal legal confidentiality as reason for inadmissability of criminal evidence... It's regardless of one or several people though; it really makes no difference....


Sick leave to care for partner - no potential for abuse there

If it's being abused; it via fraud; which is illegal; so the claim is pointless.


Wrongful death benefits - no potential for abuse there

Same issue as Pension and Estate...


Social security benefits - no potential for abuse there

Same issue as Pension and Estate...


Veteran's benefits - no potential for abuse there.

Same issue as Pension and Estate...


Gift tax - no potential for abuse there

I don't agree with the fucked-up income tax system as it stands presently... So I could care less; maybe it would make the system crumble; which is a good thing...


Ok, I'll stop the list and the sarcasm there. Or do I need to list all 1049 benefits inherent to a union of two people?

Two people, or more than two people; there is absolutely no difference what-so-ever... Any potential for abuse applicable to more than two people; is also possible with ONLY two people... So this system gets abused regardless of the number involved...

I see no reason to "protect" the government from the people... The "Government" deserves no protection; has no right to its own protection; and will not get any from me...

You have no justification for not allowing them to marry - but there is ample justification for not recognizing their group as "married" under the law. The simple reason would be that there is no logical way to apply marriage laws to 3 people. You would run into problems left and right. However, should those three choose to enter into an agreement much like marriage, who's to stop them?

I see no justification for marriage "laws" apart from contract law; in the first place.... The "Laws" are presently written with two people in question; so the issue that they cannot be applied to three is moot.... They shouldn't have been written that way in the first place... And shows a fundamental flaw in our principles as a nation which keeps suposedly claiming to center around "liberty" and "freedom" to all equally...

I see no problem with complete repealing all laws regarding marriage; and returning the entire institution to the roots of Common-Law...


The laws themselves are designed for two people. As I pointed out before, what do we do when both (or all four, etc.) of a person's nexts-of-kin disagree on what to do when that person is incapacitated, or dies? If one person leaves the group, but 4 remain, does that one person still get half of what was theirs? What if one person is married to two people, but they are not married to each other. Who is next-of-kin? Does next-of-kinship get passed between them if someone dies?

If one person leaves; no; they are no longer under the contract..... So it's moot over them getting anything...

Next-of-Kin disagreements already occur.... So the issue does not change...

Both are next-of-kin... (Just like a single parent who dies with two children...)


In the end, the current marriage laws could not possibly be applied to a larger group. For polygamy to be legally recognized, a separate form of contract would have to be worked out.

Correct, do away with the civil marriage concept to begin with; and return it to Common-Law...

sorry i only just started reading this but what the hell has a discussion on the definition of marriage got to do with how big your mortgage is,

my definition although given the terms of value you seem to be placing on peoples opinions is of no value what so ever as i am unmarried very young and have no mortgage, would be 2 people commiting to spend the rest of their lives together and support eachother in anyway needed by the other.

I thought I made expressly clear that knowledge and reason and wisdom are all far more valuable and important than any claims to age and experience. I believe P33rdom expressly agreed with that sentiment.

You are correct that was a bit of an irrelevant hijack.

You might note it was started by those who claimed they deserved respect for their opinion because they were older.

Your opinion is as valuable as anyone else's opinion. Some people may, as a result of either experience or research have more knowledge about a subject that may or may not lend additional weight to their opinions.

Regardless, claims in these forums about RL characteristics cannot be independently verified and cannot give ones assertions any extra weight whatsoever.

The only measure by which anyone's opinion on these forums should be measured is by its content.

**we now return to our regular programming**

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]

I am also 36, never married, have absolutely no schooling past yr ten, meaning degrees etc and currently live in a backpackers.

Cool. :cool:

Doesn't diminish your opinions in anyway. But I suggest you not look down your nose at youngins' -- particularly when they are the same age as you. :p :D

This one got me to thinking. It's not group contracts at all. If a man has a wife and then gets married again, it's two contracts, not one big one. The two women aren't married to each other, he's married to each individually, what if they don't even know about each other?

If he gets married to four women in four different states (or all in one state in a big house), and he is Muslim and claims that it's his religion to boot ... It isn't a group contract being talked about, it's four different one man one woman contracts, four times over.

ALL of the arguments for SSM will apply to him.

Governemnt has the right to define what constitutes a legal marriage AND they have to enforce it across state borders so it has to be federal, not up to state discretion. I still don't see how it matters how it is defined. But I surely can't see how some of you are saying SSM is okay but polygamy and other definitions are some sort of no - no when your own arguments for SSM come back into play as soon as you try to put up definitions and limits again.

One person signs a contract with another person, who are you to say how many times a person can do that?


Agreed, in such a case, it could be argued (particular to each individual contract) a violation of the contract; and thus raise suit against them under the precept of civil action against the accused by offended parties... So it's still protected in contract...

Which is the issue; Marrital Code should be nothing more than contract law...

All other points are merely either asserting originality and supremecy of government over the people (which is not constitutional in the American perspective....)

Or is applying a direct aspect of religious thought into government codification (which is also unconstitutional)...

Anything that can be applied, in contract, to two people, can be applied as well; to 3, 4, or 12... It works for corporations, it works for marriage...

If I sign a perpetual contract with one spouse; signing another with an additional one; without prior consent of the first; would violate the first contract; and subject me (under such system of Common Law) to civil prosecution by the offending party for violation of their contract.... Issue solved... If anything; it would create an enviroment of stronger marriages; since people would be forced (by the issue) to negotiate the contract to further extent then; than it is done now, whereby people enter into a prior-draft contract with the state... And then wonder why they can't get along a year down the road and start talking divorce.... It would place much more responsibility at the personal level (as opposed to the present system of offloading responsibilities to the state(s))

This one got me to thinking. It's not group contracts at all. If a man has a wife and then gets married again, it's two contracts, not one big one. The two women aren't married to each other, he's married to each individually, what if they don't even know about each other?

If he gets married to four women in four different states (or all in one state in a big house), and he is Muslim and claims that it's his religion to boot ... It isn't a group contract being talked about, it's four different one man one woman contracts, four times over.

ALL of the arguments for SSM will apply to him.

Governemnt has the right to define what constitutes a legal marriage AND they have to enforce it across state borders so it has to be federal, not up to state discretion. I still don't see how it matters how it is defined. But I surely can't see how some of you are saying SSM is okay but polygamy and other definitions are some sort of no - no when your own arguments for SSM come back into play as soon as you try to put up definitions and limits again.

One person signs a contract with another person, who are you to say how many times a person can do that?


Agreed, in such a case, it could be argued (particular to each individual contract) a violation of the contract; and thus raise suit against them under the precept of civil action against the accused by offended parties... So it's still protected in contract...

Which is the issue; Marrital Code should be nothing more than contract law...

All other points are merely either asserting originality and supremecy of government over the people (which is not constitutional in the American perspective....)

Or is applying a direct aspect of religious thought into government codification (which is also unconstitutional)...

Anything that can be applied, in contract, to two people, can be applied as well; to 3, 4, or 12... It works for corporations, it works for marriage...

If I sign a perpetual contract with one spouse; signing another with an additional one; without prior consent of the first; would violate the first contract; and subject me (under such system of Common Law) to civil prosecution by the offended party for violation of their contract.... Issue solved... If anything; it would create an enviroment of stronger marriages; since people would be forced (by the issue) to negotiate the contract to further extent then; than it is done now, whereby people enter into a prior-draft contract with the state... And then wonder why they can't get along a year down the road and start talking divorce.... It would place much more responsibility at the personal level (as opposed to the present system of offloading responsibilities to the state(s))

There's no adultery to speak of in this case at all, there is simply numerous wives. The Wives all share equally in parts, instead of winning it all like a sole lottery ticket. It's not that hard to imagine percentages and shares.

Can you cite the laws that take this into account? Can you explain how a law that says I get sole and entire custody of the entire estate without taxation in the event of the death of my spouse can somehow be seen to mean percentages and shares? Can you actual support your ridiculous statements?

Do you understand the nature of a contract and how you are held to meet the reasonable expectations of the contract? Do you understand that this expectations would include - monogamy unless expressly stated otherwise by both parties, shared and equal ownership of all assets (this means that he is legally entitled to half her stuff and she is legally entitled to half her stuff. This means that entitling someone else to the same half would be a lack of good faith.)?

Do you understand that I can't enter into a mortgage contract with one bank and then got to seven other banks and enter into seven other mortgage contracts with the same house as collateral? This constitutes fraud. You're aware of that, yes? You are also aware that multiple marriages without notifiying all people involved would also be fraud, yes?

Just a note: I've read throught this entire - incredibly informative and entertaining - thread, and I'd like to do a quick impression of just about 80% of Jocabia's posts.

"You really don't understand contract laws at all, do you? Read the fourteenth amendment!"

I'll stop saying it if people stop posting in ignorance of both.

Can you cite the laws that take this into account? Can you explain how a law that says I get sole and entire custody of the entire estate without taxation in the event of the death of my spouse can somehow bee seen to mean percentages and shares? Can you actual support your ridiculous statements?

Do you understand the nature of a contract and how you are held to meet the reasonable expectations of the contract? Do you understand that this expectations would include - monogamy unless expressly stated otherwise by both parties, shared and equal ownership of all assets (this means that he is legally entitled to half her stuff and she is legally entitled to half her stuff. This means that entitling someone else to the same half would be a lack of good faith.)?

Do you understand that I can't enter into a mortgage contract with one bank and then got to seven other banks and enter into seven other mortgage contracts with the same house as collateral? This constitutes fraud. You're aware of that, yes? You are also aware that multiple marriages without notifiying all people involved would also be fraud, yes?

You do know that you can get Second Mortgages, correct? And not even necessarily from the bank that issued you the first.....

That's besides the issue.... Second mortgages exist as they are; secondary to the first contract.... Liability is concerned where such secondary contract loans exist which cause violation of the first; thereby inducing liability in violation by the offending party upon the first; and would be equally applicable to a marrital contract. Entering into a second marrital contract does not negate responsibilities entailed in the first; and does not excuse liability in either contract.... If situation arrises whereby the offending party fails his liability in an existing contract; both parties (or more) with contracts; can seek joint or seperate suit against the offender under infringement of their induties under said contract (would likely be seperate suit). Thus, rather than resultant liability be enforced via civil law; it would be enforced via civil suit...

I never said it does; But also, defining a marriage as being between a number of consenting adults (more than two) doesn't either...

The fourteenth amendment requires that law not discriminate based on gender and sex. So marriage CANNOT be defined as a marriage between a man and a woman but it can be defined as a union of two people by your own admission. Thus it is no violation of the fourteenth to limit the number of participants while it is a violation to deny SSM. Quite simple.

Violation; it must recieve equal protection... That is required by the 14th.

You've already admitted that it is not a violation. Short memory? Or just not paying attention?

Well, is the government required to operate under "equal protection" or isn't it.... Make up your mind.... If the government can't legally limit the number; then it also cannot refuse recognition based upon it's own arbitrary (and unconstitutional, since it has never been conveyed such power) limitation of such....

It is required to operate under equal protection. If everyone is permitted to benefits of a union of two-people there is no lack of equal protection. Now as far as multiple obtaining marriages that are not recognized by the government, what possible interest would the government have in preventing this?

Divided equally, like is already done... Pensions are many times divided between spouses, and then cursory to children... Many times it operates to give 50% to the spouse, and 50% divded between the number of children; So in the case of two spouces; 33% to each of the two spouces; and 33% divided equally between the kids...

I'm not talking about division. Pensions are required by law to have survivor benefits. Multiple marriages allow one the ability to increase the possibility of survivors. I know it's an unlikely scenario, but why couldn't I marry fifty I marry fifty 80-year-old women and collect their pensions on their passing?

Same thing...

The state protects your ability to inherit the estate of your spouse without taxation. Why couldn't I just marry the people I would like to inherit my estate to ensure they are not taxed in recieving the estate? I know you don't like tax law, but you can't use polygamy to unravel and it is in the state's interest to prevent that from happening.

I can "make" citizens, merely by going oversees and getting women pregnant; don't see much of a difference... Besides; I see no reason for the government to limit the ability of foreigners to become citizens...

I don't agree with the fucked-up income tax system as it stands presently... So I could care less; maybe it would make the system crumble; which is a good thing...


Too bad the government does see a reason. Again, a defense for polygamy isn't I don't like the current tax or immigration law. In fact, your argument shows a compelling state interest in the limitation. Thanks for that.

I'm not going to make up for your lack of imagination by giving an example of the potential for abuse of each every of 1049 benefits offered for marriage. Especially since you've already admitted that it is not violation of the 14th amendment to define marriage as a union of two people.

The fourteenth amendment requires that law not discriminate based on gender and sex. So marriage CANNOT be defined as a marriage between a man and a woman but it can be defined as a union of two people by your own admission. Thus it is no violation of the fourteenth to limit the number of participants while it is a violation to deny SSM. Quite simple.

My point; is government itself has never been granted the authority over marriage to being with. Arguing whether or not such authority "violates" a subsequent amendment is moot. They need the power in the first place. And the feds don't have it.

Searching and seizing property without warrant does not violate the first amendment..... But it's still unconstitutional...



You've already admitted that it is not a violation. Short memory? Or just not paying attention?

Not an inclusive violation; but an exclusive one.... Difference; governmental power is inclusive to the constitution; my rights exist exclusive of it...


It is required to operate under equal protection. If everyone is permitted to benefits of a union of two-people there is no lack of equal protection. Now as far as multiple obtaining marriages that are not recognized by the government, what possible interest would the government have in preventing this?

Government interest is moot.... The government has no "interest" only enumerated powers....


I'm not talking about division. Pensions are required by law to have survivor benefits. Multiple marriages allow one the ability to increase the possibility of survivors. I know it's an unlikely scenario, but why couldn't I marry fifty I marry fifty 80-year-old women and collect their pensions on their passing?


What's the problem with that? I see none... If my mom, dad, and granparents die; I get several pension benefits and the like... All at once....


The state protects your ability to inherit the estate of your spouse without taxation. Why couldn't I just marry the people I would like to inherit my estate to ensure they are not taxed in recieving the estate? I know you don't like tax law, but you can't use polygamy to unravel and it is in the state's interest to prevent that from happening.

1. Tax law is not my problem....
2. Multiple Marriages unraveling it means nothing to me.
3. The State has no interest... Only specifically enumerated powers...
4. They don't like it; they can change the tax-laws...


Too bad the government does see a reason. Again, a defense for polygamy isn't I don't like the current tax or immigration law. In fact, your argument shows a compelling state interest in the limitation. Thanks for that.

You're very anti-american. State-Interest is not a defense against polygamy. The state can change their laws to make it fit.... Overruled...


I'm not going to make up for your lack of imagination by giving an example of the potential for abuse of each every of 1049 benefits offered for marriage. Especially since you've already admitted that it is not violation of the 14th amendment to define marriage as a union of two people.

It's not a violation of th 14th ammendment expressly. But your dominionism shows profusely on this issue...

It does not matter; none of your argument matter because they are founded on a system designed to complicate the issue.... We change the system... Big deal. There is no valid or compelling reason to deny polyamous unions; except reasons INVENTED for that expressed purpose; and for a system which does not account for it...... Let the government adapt... It's my servant, and it's eventually going to do what I and everyone else wants it to...... Polygamy, like Gay-Marriage is inevitable based upon our core ideals.... Just as the end of Slavery was; just as Civil Rights were..... It's all the same to me.... It's a when......

My point; is government itself has never been granted the authority over marriage to being with. Arguing whether or not such authority "violates" a subsequent amendment is moot. They need the power in the first place. And the feds don't have it.

Searching and seizing property without warrant does not violate the first amendment..... But it's still unconstitutional...

Who said the feds? The feds don't make marriage law. States do. My point is that they can, in fact, have to, recognize ssm because it violates the constitution not to. There is no violation to the constitution to not recognize polygamy. You have not shown one. Not even below.

Not an inclusive violation; but an exclusive one.... Difference; governmental power is inclusive to the constitution; my rights exist exclusive of it...

No one is suggesting you should be required to not engage in such activities but your recognition under law, and the benefits conferred, is not required by the constitution. The states can define marriage so long as that definition does not violate the US Constitution.

Government interest is moot.... The government has no "interest" only enumerated powers....

You should read some case law, methinks.

1. Tax law is not my problem....
2. Multiple Marriages unraveling it means nothing to me.
3. The State has no interest... Only specifically enumerated powers...
4. They don't like it; they can change the tax-laws...

Good job avoiding the point. Current law does not cover polygamy and is incapable of handling it. How did you miss that point?

You're very anti-american. State-Interest is not a defense against polygamy. The state can change their laws to make it fit.... Overruled...

Sure the state can change the laws. The point is current law does not cover polygamy. That was always the point. Still is. As far as anti-american, such insults show the quality of your argument.

It's not a violation of th 14th ammendment expressly. But your dominionism shows profusely on this issue...

Oh, yay, another insult. While compelling, forgive me if I consider it important to avoid the result you suggested might come from recognizing polygamy - "maybe it would make the system crumble"

It does not matter; none of your argument matter because they are founded on a system designed to complicate the issue.... We change the system... Big deal. There is no valid or compelling reason to deny polyamous unions; except reasons INVENTED for that expressed purpose; and for a system which does not account for it...... Let the government adapt... It's my servant, and it's eventually going to do what I and everyone else wants it to...... Polygamy, like Gay-Marriage is inevitable based upon our core ideals.... Just as the end of Slavery was; just as Civil Rights were..... It's all the same to me.... It's a when......
Feel free to adapt the system. I'm not arguing that shouldn't or can't. I'm arguing that it is not required to and can not recognize polygamy under current law. You agree. Glad we settled that.

IOW: You're stating that we shouldn't recognize polygamy; because current law doesn't and won't (not can't)....

Since we can repeal laws which won't allow it... There is no such thing as things we can't do...

Arguing not to, based on current law; is, to be blunt, assinine...

We can make polygamy legal....
We can rewrite faulty laws which don't account for it....

And as soon as that is done in one state; it is enevitable for it to be forced as such in all others...

IOW: You're stating that we shouldn't recognize polygamy; because current law doesn't and won't (not can't)....

Since we can repeal laws which won't allow it... There is no such thing as things we can't do...

Arguing not to, based on current law; is, to be blunt, assinine...

We can make polygamy legal....
We can rewrite faulty laws which don't account for it....

And as soon as that is done in one state; it is enevitable for it to be forced as such in all others...

Yes, I said it plainly in the beginning. You're welcome to change these laws, but you better get started, it's gonna take a while. And in the end, you'll get exactly what we said you get. A completely different set of benefits for polygamy. It's not just a matter of rewriting those laws. It's a matter of creating laws to address polygamy because polygamy was never considered when the benefits were written. And making polygamy recognized by the government is not just a matter of pointing out that it is a violation of the constitution to not allow it. Becuase it's not a violation of the constitution like denying SSM is.

In another thread someone claimed that the definition and purpose of marriage is 'self-evident'. I suggest it's not or at least, if it is, the definition is not what he/she is expecting. Would you mind stating specifically what you think the definition of marriage is? I would prefer it if this not become another same-sex marriage debate, but I suspect it will eventually degrade into that. I just ask that before you start tearing apart the definitions of others, could you please, in your first post, define marriage. We're not looking for a dictionary definition. Just your personal view of what marriage is.

My definition: the union of two people in love.

That's a good definition of what I think marriage *should be* but not what it necessarily is. People sometimes marry for reasons other than love. Historically it's probably more often been about money or politics.

That's a good definition of what I think marriage *should be* but not what it necessarily is. People sometimes marry for reasons other than love. Historically it's probably more often been about money or politics.

We are actually talking about what we think marriage should be.

[QUOTE=Ugochocka]

Cool. :cool:

Doesn't diminish your opinions in anyway. But I suggest you not look down your nose at youngins' -- particularly when they are the same age as you. :p :D

I dont look down my nose at anyone, but I'll disagree with them till the end, if their doing stuff that is harmfull to themselves or others, or have opinions on matters that arent helpful to society.

[QUOTE=Very Angry Rabbits][quote=Ugochocka]
Quote:
No – because you're in the habit of closing yourself off from the variety that is the spice of life. Who and how you choose to marry – not in question, whatever floats your boat. Insisting that your way is the only way, and any attempts to put that into law – sad, pathetic

My way as you call it, is agreed with, by alot of people VAR, its not something I came up with by myself.
What you call 'variety' I and others call perversion.


Everyone and anyone who attempts to prohibit others from making lifestyle choices outside the sad, thin, restricted, anemic definition that the same Everyone and anyone is trying to ensure is the only legal option. Pick a number from 1 to a zillion.

If it was up to me, you could have your life style choices, but you would be ostracised from the community to carry out your life style choice outside it.

A little over the top there, aren’t you, chum? If the western society (say, perhaps you meant “Western Civilization”? ;) ) you are afraid is going to fall down is that dependent on that restricted a definition of marriage, then let it go. Freedom of choice is the cornerstone of Western Civilization. All the way back to the Greeks – and check out some of the choices they made. What’s more, what’s wrong with Eastern Civilization? Sarcasm aside, my point is CHOICE and VARIETY – with harm to others being the only thing to prohibit a choice of lifestyle.

Actually the heterosexual family is the cornerstone of western civilisation, as it is with all others, because it is the most stablest and numerous family arrangement. Homosexual relationships recognised as being equal, especially ones that are allowed to raise kids will detract from this.



Not with your choice of lifestyle, or who/how you choose to marry. As stated before, I am a heterosexual male married (in a church) to the same wonderful woman for 26 years, with 4 incredible kids.

Well with your views on homosexuality, I for one would not shake your hand, as a fellow Christian.
You have lost the Lords teachings, by accepting homosexuality as right, I view 'Christians' such as you, as either seriously deluded or agents of Satan, posing as Christians to destabilise the Church from within, by influencing other Christians with your worldly views.


I’m concerned with anyone who tries to legislate their lifestyle choices into the only legally acceptable lifestyle choice. If a choice won’t HARM someone, then it should not be illegal.

And I'm concerned with people who try to legalise perverted lifestyles as the equal of normal man to woman relationships.


The sad, pathetic, etc, is NOT aimed at the particular lifestyle choice someone makes – it’s aimed at the narrow thinking of those who believe that their choice is the only viable choice, and go about making other choices illegal.

Men marrying women IS the only normal choice, for society to function properly.
Anything else should be discouraged strongly.

Yes, I said it plainly in the beginning. You're welcome to change these laws, but you better get started, it's gonna take a while. And in the end, you'll get exactly what we said you get. A completely different set of benefits for polygamy. It's not just a matter of rewriting those laws. It's a matter of creating laws to address polygamy because polygamy was never considered when the benefits were written. And making polygamy recognized by the government is not just a matter of pointing out that it is a violation of the constitution to not allow it. Becuase it's not a violation of the constitution like denying SSM is.
It shouldn't be too hard, I would think, as you could use existing polygamous units, like the Hittite colonies, as a model.

Well with your views on homosexuality, I for one would not shake your hand, as a fellow Christian.
As a fellow Christian, I would shake VAR's hand and hope that he changes from VAR to VLR - Very Loving Rabbits. And when it comes our time to stand before our savior we will see which methodology wins. Love and tolerance and hate and intolerance.

Also, this corruption of teachings should be easy to show to us all right now. Would you care to cite chapter and verse of the Bible that prohibits homosexuality, particularly the parts that say if you think homosexuals should be treated as people you do not deserve to be called Christian?

I'd like to point all the Christians to the above post. It's exactly what we are in danger of when we preach intolerance. First, it's ostracize the sinners. Then it's ostracize the people preach tolerance for the sinners. Then it's ostracize the people who preach tolerance for the people who preach tolerance for the sinners. Not only is that hard to say, but it's not the job of the Christian to punish the wicked. It's not even the job of the Christian to decide who is wicked. Christ was another person that the religious community ostracized for preaching tolerance and kindness. They believed in stoning prostitutes and Jesus stepped in and stopped it much to the chagrin of the religious leadership. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

To the non-Christians, feel free to skip the post. It's designed to wag my finger at those Christians who invoke the name of Christ to excuse hatred and intolerance.

Marrige- AKA, Hell On Earth...

what bugs me is how society views peoples lifestyle choices
if people choose to get married, they get engaged people give them presents then they get married people give them presents then 'they' get pregnant- baby shower -presents, birth-presents wedding anniversary- presents mothers day-presents fathers day -presents and to top it all of they get tax breaks and stuff like that the result- single people with no presents, out of money due to huge taxes and buying loads of presents celebrating other people's choices i propose there should be some kind of single persons celebration (birthdays dont count)like, you decided that the world was over crowded enough as it is day or......any suggestions?

I'd like to point all the Christians to the above post. It's exactly what we are in danger of when we preach intolerance. First, it's ostracize the sinners. Then it's ostracize the people preach tolerance for the sinners. Then it's ostracize the people who preach tolerance for the people who preach tolerance for the sinners. Not only is that hard to say, but it's not the job of the Christian to punish the wicked. It's not even the job of the Christian to decide who is wicked. Christ was another person that the religious community ostracized for preaching tolerance and kindness. They believed in stoning prostitutes and Jesus stepped in and stopped it much to the chagrin of the religious leadership. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

To the non-Christians, feel free to skip the post. It's designed to wag my finger at those Christians who invoke the name of Christ to excuse hatred and intolerance.

Actually the issue was adultery; and the "leaders" were not following the specific law regarding such...

The claim layed was that there were "witnesses" which caught the adultress "in the very act"...

The law requires that both the adulterer and adulteress be stoned.... They were stoning the adultress (where was the adulterer)... So their claims to "following the law" were in fact wrong in the first place.

Following part of the law; is akin to not following any of it...

Marriage is between two panthers.

I think you are letting your religious opinion influence your thinking here. When did I say anything about what the marriage agreements said?

You implied that you were speaking of legal marriage licenses. If you were talking about something other than legal marriage licenses, I apologize - but marriage law would then have nothing to do with it.

Meanwhile, what does religion have to do with next-of-kinship, power-of-attorney, or inheritance laws?

EDIT: forgot to mention the property and power-of-attorney stuff. If they are in different states, each wife controls her own assets (in that state obviously) and anything above and beyond would have to be liquidated or bought off by one to the others, like inheritance rules for adult children have to do now.

Then you aren't talking about actual legal marriage licenses. Gotcha.

I see no justification for marriage "laws" apart from contract law;

You see no reason at all for the various protections and restrictions placed on a married couple? Nothing at all that the government has an interest in? Methinks you haven't really looked at it.

They shouldn't have been written that way in the first place...

There is no other way to write them. You can't exactly be 1/2 next-of-kin or 1/2 power-of-attorney.

And shows a fundamental flaw in our principles as a nation which keeps suposedly claiming to center around "liberty" and "freedom" to all equally...

Not in the least. Recognizing a particular union that occurs very often between two people and necessitates certain protections and regulations doesn't get in the way of liberty and freedom at all. If we opened marriage up to any such couple, then it would be something any couple could enter into.

As I have pointed out, other arrangements could have other methods of legal recognition.

I see no problem with complete repealing all laws regarding marriage; and returning the entire institution to the roots of Common-Law...

Most of the laws we have are nothing more than codification of common law.

If one person leaves; no; they are no longer under the contract..... So it's moot over them getting anything...

Really? So everything they own goes into the collective, but if they leave, they get nothing? Wow, you just hedged someone into a lifetime marriage - whether they want to be there or not - so that they don't starve on the street.

Correct, do away with the civil marriage concept to begin with; and return it to Common-Law...

Then you didn't really mean to say correct, now did you?

Note that I said polygamy would simply need a different sort of recognition, not that we do away with marriage recognition.

My point; is government itself has never been granted the authority over marriage to being with.

Not over religious marriage. Not even over your right to say "Hey, we're married!"

However, the government absolutely does have power over the civil institution of marriage - as it is wholly governmental anyways.

Government interest is moot.... The government has no "interest" only enumerated powers....

There goes over 200 years of jurisprudence...

[qote]You're very anti-american. State-Interest is not a defense against polygamy. The state can change their laws to make it fit.... Overruled...[/quote]

I love it when you demonstrate how very little argument you have by resorting to idiotic insults. Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

Meanwhile, state-interest is not a defense against polygamy that has nothing to do with the state. In other words, if you don't want state recognition of your polygamous relationship, then you are correct that state interest has nothing to do with it. However, state interest absolutely is an argument when talking about state-recognized marriage.

Could the state write a completely different set of laws (just changing them wouldn't do) to recognize polygamy? Of course it could. Is there a state-interest in it and is it best for the people? Well, that would depend on how you went about it.

It does not matter; none of your argument matter because they are founded on a system designed to complicate the issue.... We change the system... Big deal. There is no valid or compelling reason to deny polyamous unions; except reasons INVENTED for that expressed purpose; and for a system which does not account for it...... Let the government adapt... It's my servant, and it's eventually going to do what I and everyone else wants it to...... Polygamy, like Gay-Marriage is inevitable based upon our core ideals.... Just as the end of Slavery was; just as Civil Rights were..... It's all the same to me.... It's a when......

Not necessarily. If things start getting very complicated, the government could (and probably would) drop all recognition of marriage whatsoever. Polygamy would simply be a complication for the government - not a convenience or a help to anyone really. Thus, if it came down to either dropping all government recognition of marriage, or dropping marriage laws and completely rewriting them, the government would probably simply cease to recognize marriage.

Not necessarily. If things start getting very complicated, the government could (and probably would) drop all recognition of marriage whatsoever. Polygamy would simply be a complication for the government - not a convenience or a help to anyone really. Thus, if it came down to either dropping all government recognition of marriage, or dropping marriage laws and completely rewriting them, the government would probably simply cease to recognize marriage.


Hmm, are you SURE you're not just repeating what the anti-gay-marriage people are saying? That any definition change means it’s not marriage anymore?


(I’m bowing out of this battle though, to me it was nothing but exercise in debate and thought. Fun while it lasted sort of thing. :) But I think, constitutionally, that it can stay as it is now, or add SSM or add Polygamy, and all three will be declared constitutional because it’s not really a civil right anyway ~ because it requires definition and the government has an interest in it. Everyone has a Right to get married, but what marriage is defined as can change, IMHO.)