Define "Marriage"

[CreepersWiener]

This is why governments should only acknowledge Civil Unions and not marriages. You should be allowed to marry whoever or whatever you want as long as that doesn't infringe on the liberties of other citizens.

If you want to marry three guys and a women and her poodle...then so be it. However, as far as government acknowledgement goes, only a Civil Union between two adults should be allowed (for taxes and property and such).

Marriage is just a matter of moral perspective and government should have no place in it.

[natty dread]

as far as government acknowledgement goes, only a Civil Union between two adults should be allowed

Why only two? If three or more people want to marry each other why shouldn't they?

[CreepersWiener]

as far as government acknowledgement goes, only a Civil Union between two adults should be allowed

Why only two? If three or more people want to marry each other why shouldn't they?

They can. You can marry whoever or whatever you want. Marriage should not be dictated by the government. Government should butt out of the marriage business. However, they can recognize a Civil Union between two people.

You can marry as many people or things as you want, but you can only choose one (and must be human) to have a Civil Union with.

[patrickaa317]

as far as government acknowledgement goes, only a Civil Union between two adults should be allowed

Why only two? If three or more people want to marry each other why shouldn't they?

They can. You can marry whoever or whatever you want. Marriage should not be dictated by the government. Government should butt out of the marriage business. However, they can recognize a Civil Union between two people.

You can marry as many people or things as you want, but you can only choose one (and must be human) to have a Civil Union with.

What is so special about keeping it to just two people? Aren't you discriminating against all the triples or quadruples of people that want to share the same thing that two people can? Why can't I use a multiple civil union with many people to get the benefits that only couples can enjoy? What if I'm the third one in my happy triangle of love? Why am I being discriminated against.

I can understand keeping it to two people if you are looking at how traditional families work or looking at the reproductive science where it takes one of each to reproduce; but if we are just talking about enjoying civil protection among living wills, hospital rights, insurance rights, etc, why do you wish to hold the third leg of the triangle away from being part of the union? Union surely isn't defined as a joining of two, and only two, entities, is it?

[natty dread]

^ what thon said

[Phatscotty]

The slippery slope continues. Best to just keep a vital institution like marriage simple. The discussion we have seen so far show exactly the reasons why we should not be running social experiments on national scales, and also why these issues should not be politicized.

[chang50]

The slippery slope continues. Best to just keep a vital institution like marriage simple. The discussion we have seen so far show exactly the reasons why we should not be running social experiments on national scales, and also why these issues should not be politicized.

Wasn't the founding of the us a social experiment on a national scale?Just askin'

[AAFitz]

and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the Tyranny of the Minority

Indeed, how dare they take your fundamental right to dictate how other people live their lives. THE CADS.

how does my dic-tate?

homophobic

[Phatscotty]

The slippery slope continues. Best to just keep a vital institution like marriage simple. The discussion we have seen so far show exactly the reasons why we should not be running social experiments on national scales, and also why these issues should not be politicized.

Wasn't the founding of the us a social experiment on a national scale?Just askin'

no

[natty dread]

The slippery slope continues. Best to just keep a vital institution like marriage simple. The discussion we have seen so far show exactly the reasons why we should not be running social experiments on national scales, and also why these issues should not be politicized.

Slippery slope my ass.

See Phatscotty, posts like that show your true colours. You pretend like you're all ok with equality and stuff, but in the end you're just a run-of-the-mill bigot. You're ok with people getting discriminated against as long as it doesn't affect you directly.

I have just one question for you.

Have you ever had wet dreams about Ron paul?

[bedub1]

^ what thon said

QFT

The slippery slope continues. Best to just keep a vital institution like marriage simple. The discussion we have seen so far show exactly the reasons why we should not be running social experiments on national scales, and also why these issues should not be politicized.

Just shove your head in the sand and ignore progress. We fully support keeping marriage simple, in the churches where it belongs. But when it comes to rights for people bestowed by the government, you can't deny other people rights. If you do, then soon we will deny you your rights.

[thegreekdog]

I suppose the question is not "what is the defintion of marriage," but is "what is your definition of marriage" or, alternatively, "what should the state's definition of marriage be" or "what should society's definition of marriage be." I have different answers for all of those questions.

My definition of marriage (i.e. my own personal definition) is that marriage is between a man and a woman recognized by a religious institution (the Catholic Church). This definition only applies to me personally and to no one else. I would not impose my own personal definition on others.

I think the government's definition of marriage should not exist. The government should not be in the business of providing benefits or regulations on the existence of a relationship between two or more people. Either no benefits for anyone (my preference) or benefits for all (no matter the sexual orientation or number of the people engaged in the social construct).

I think society's definition of marriage also should not exist. I believe polygamist marriages should be recognized by society. I believe gay marriages should be recognized by society. To the extent the government continues to be involved in regulating and providing incentives for marriage, these marriages should also be recognized.

And Phatscotty... this thread and your posts herein is why you are not a real Ron Paulite or Libertarian.

[bedub1]

I suppose the question is not "what is the defintion of marriage," but is "what is your definition of marriage" or, alternatively, "what should the state's definition of marriage be" or "what should society's definition of marriage be." I have different answers for all of those questions.

My definition of marriage (i.e. my own personal definition) is that marriage is between a man and a woman recognized by a religious institution (the Catholic Church). This definition only applies to me personally and to no one else. I would not impose my own personal definition on others.

I think the government's definition of marriage should not exist. The government should not be in the business of providing benefits or regulations on the existence of a relationship between two or more people. Either no benefits for anyone (my preference) or benefits for all (no matter the sexual orientation or number of the people engaged in the social construct).

I think society's definition of marriage also should not exist. I believe polygamist marriages should be recognized by society. I believe gay marriages should be recognized by society. To the extent the government continues to be involved in regulating and providing incentives for marriage, these marriages should also be recognized.

And Phatscotty... this thread and your posts herein is why you are not a real Ron Paulite or Libertarian.

Well said. As a single individual who doesn't know if he will ever get married, I find it appalling that the government offers special privileges to married couples. It's discrimination and horseshit.

[PLAYER57832]

The slippery slope continues. Best to just keep a vital institution like marriage simple. The discussion we have seen so far show exactly the reasons why we should not be running social experiments on national scales, and also why these issues should not be politicized.

So you are saying we should skip the limit to the one man/one woman since this is an unnecessary complication to an established simple idea?

[patrickaa317]

as far as government acknowledgement goes, only a Civil Union between two adults should be allowed

Why only two? If three or more people want to marry each other why shouldn't they?

They can. You can marry whoever or whatever you want. Marriage should not be dictated by the government. Government should butt out of the marriage business. However, they can recognize a Civil Union between two people.

You can marry as many people or things as you want, but you can only choose one (and must be human) to have a Civil Union with.

What is so special about keeping it to just two people? Aren't you discriminating against all the triples or quadruples of people that want to share the same thing that two people can? Why can't I use a multiple civil union with many people to get the benefits that only couples can enjoy? What if I'm the third one in my happy triangle of love? Why am I being discriminated against.

I can understand keeping it to two people if you are looking at how traditional families work or looking at the reproductive science where it takes one of each to reproduce; but if we are just talking about enjoying civil protection among living wills, hospital rights, insurance rights, etc, why do you wish to hold the third leg of the triangle away from being part of the union? Union surely isn't defined as a joining of two, and only two, entities, is it?

Bump. Can anyone help me understand why we are choosing to limit marriage or civil unions to two people? I understand if we limit it to one man and one woman as that is for reproductional, "standard" family structure. But if two men are ok. Why not three men? Can't three men all love each other? Shouldn't the third one be entitled to what the first two are? Or is a pair somehow greater than a triple?

[Army of GOD]

why not a baseball bat and the number four?

[Neoteny]

I married fear.

[natty dread]

why not a baseball bat and the number four?

One is non-sentient, and the other is an abstract concept. Neither can give full consent.

I understand if we limit it to one man and one woman as that is for reproductional, "standard" family structure.

Oh, you understand, do you?

Can you help me understand why marriage should be limited to one man + one woman simply because they can, in some cases, reproduce?

And If reproduction is the qualifier, should infertile couples be allowed to marry? How is this "understandable" in any way?

But if two men are ok. Why not three men? Can't three men all love each other? Shouldn't the third one be entitled to what the first two are?

Why not indeed? I'm all for poly marriage.

[Army of GOD]

why not a baseball bat and the number four?

One is non-sentient, and the other is an abstract concept. Neither can give full consent.

You're just a filthy bigot.

[natty dread]

why not a baseball bat and the number four?

One is non-sentient, and the other is an abstract concept. Neither can give full consent.

You're just a filthy bigot.

Nope, I'm a clean spigot.

[patrickaa317]

why not a baseball bat and the number four?

One is non-sentient, and the other is an abstract concept. Neither can give full consent.

I understand if we limit it to one man and one woman as that is for reproductional, "standard" family structure.

Oh, you understand, do you?

Can you help me understand why marriage should be limited to one man + one woman simply because they can, in some cases, reproduce?

And If reproduction is the qualifier, should infertile couples be allowed to marry? How is this "understandable" in any way?

But if two men are ok. Why not three men? Can't three men all love each other? Shouldn't the third one be entitled to what the first two are?

Why not indeed? I'm all for poly marriage.

I won't get into debating my beliefs of why 1 man, 1 woman is understandable. I know for some, that is not understandable. Let's agree to disagree on that point.


I would rather focus on finding someone that supports gay marriage but does not support marriage involving three or more people (not necessarily polygamy). Polygamy is the act of one man having multiple wives, or one woman having multiple husbands. The wives that are married to the same man are not married to each other.

I'm speaking of why one in support of gay marriage would limit it to just A.) one man, one woman; B.) two men; or C.) two women. Why can't 3 people all marry each other and all share in the benefits of marriage. What is special about a two individual relationship that cannot exist in a three individual relationship?

[chang50]

Polygamy is the act of one man having multiple wives, or one woman having multiple husbands. The wives that are married to the same man are not married to each other.

Not so,one woman having multiple husbands is polyandry,just sayin'

[natty dread]

Polygamy and polyandry are both subsets of polyamorous relationships.

I won't get into debating my beliefs of why [restricting marriage only for] 1 man, 1 woman is understandable. I know for some, that is not understandable. Let's agree to disagree on that point.

So, you admit that the idea is indefensible, then?

I would rather focus on finding someone that supports gay marriage but does not support marriage involving three or more people

Why? Why do you specifically want to find this supposed person who supports gay but not poly marriages? Is there a point you're trying to make with this line of argument?

Does it matter if there does exist someone who is against poly marriages but not against gay ones? Most people here who support gay marriage also support poly marriages, as far as I can tell. So what's the point?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I married fear.

Never a dull moment.

-TG

[thegreekdog]

why not a baseball bat and the number four?

One is non-sentient, and the other is an abstract concept. Neither can give full consent.

You're just a filthy bigot.

Nope, I'm a clean spigot.

By your own definition of bigot, you are clearly a bigot. You are imposing your own morals on someone else (namely AoG who would like to wed a baseball bat and the number 4).