EPT![[image loading]](http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/9233/schrutenesshz9.jpg)
Are you saying that objective fairness is not necessarily the ideal? Or that extending marriage to polygamy is unnecessary for fairness?
or
c) other (specify)
Prop 8 Passes/Overturned - California Bans/Unbans Gay Marr…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
Are you saying that objective fairness is not necessarily the ideal? Or that extending marriage to polygamy is unnecessary for fairness? or c) other (specify) | ||
KwarK
United States42181 Posts
If you want to argue the sanctity of marriage then you have to narrow the definition far beyond what society already accepts. The problem isn't that we're marriage abolitionists. It's that society has made marriage meaningless. When a man and a woman actually have to be committed to each other to get married then I'll expect the same of two men. When marriage is a religious issue I'll allow religions to have a say in who gets married. But while it's no more than a ceremony and a legal status then there is no logical basis to deny it to anyone based upon sexual orientation. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42181 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 07 2008 23:07 Kwark wrote: HeadBangaa, you don't have to be a marriage abolitionist to realise it's essentially meaningless, just a realist. When a man and a woman who don't like each other can get married for financial reasons and then never see each other again then it's already far less meaningful than if a guy who is into beastiality marries his horse or whatever. If you want to argue the sanctity of marriage then you have to narrow the definition far beyond what society already accepts. The problem isn't that we're marriage abolitionists. It's that society has made marriage meaningless. When a man and a woman actually have to be committed to each other to get married then I'll expect the same of two men. When marriage is a religious issue I'll allow religions to have a say in who gets married. But while it's no more than a ceremony and a legal status then there is no logical basis to deny it to anyone based upon sexual orientation. Excellent post. To corroborate that: my best bud Jack got a "civil union" with his cousin (!) in order to receive in-state tuition at our university (he's straight). Clearly abuse. Do you think spousal units should receive any sort of state-sponsored benefit anyways? | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 07 2008 23:07 Jibba wrote: Well, I believe marriage is an exclusive contract which is the easiest way to eliminate polygamy. I don't really care if people have multiple life partners. Why can't 3 people have an exclusive contract?.. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 07 2008 23:29 HeadBangaa wrote: Why can't 3 people have an exclusive contract?.. Are you talking hypothetical or in the realistic, Mormon sense of polygamy? The contract doesn't exist between the wives in the latter. | ||
|
Centric
United States1989 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42181 Posts
On November 07 2008 23:25 HeadBangaa wrote: Excellent post. To corroborate that: my best bud Jack got a "civil union" with his cousin (!) in order to receive in-state tuition at our university (he's straight). Clearly abuse. Do you think spousal units should receive any sort of state-sponsored benefit anyways? I think loving long term relationships are something the state should encourage but I think it's pretty much impossible to measure a relationship objectively. So they should create an environment for it and encourage it through education but financial incentives just destroy the integrity of the relationship they are meant to endorse. And marriage is not a measure of a relationship, merely of the ability to find a registry office. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On November 07 2008 23:29 HeadBangaa wrote: Why can't 3 people have an exclusive contract?.. 2 reasons 1 Polygamy was never popular unlike homosexuality it didn't make it far outside of utah 2 The rules set down for 2 person marriage are solid but we have jack shit for 3 person marriage. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42181 Posts
On November 07 2008 23:39 IzzyCraft wrote: 2 reasons 1 Polygamy was never popular unlike homosexuality it didn't make it far outside of utah 2 The rules set down for 2 person marriage are solid but we have jack shit for 3 person marriage. So if I go to Saudi Arabia and marry 2 women and then move back here is my marriage valid? Marriage means different things to different people. This is the root problem with this thread. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 07 2008 23:33 Kwark wrote: I think loving long term relationships are something the state should encourage but I think it's pretty much impossible to measure a relationship objectively. So they should create an environment for it and encourage it through education but financial incentives just destroy the integrity of the relationship they are meant to endorse. And marriage is not a measure of a relationship, merely of the ability to find a registry office. Hmm, I always figured that married couples received benefit from the government/society because of the ideal socialization context it provides (ie, its reproductive role). I can't reason why the government would care about "love" as some ideal in and of itself. That is a more interesting debate to me. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 07 2008 23:39 IzzyCraft wrote: 2 reasons 1 Polygamy was never popular unlike homosexuality it didn't make it far outside of utah 2 The rules set down for 2 person marriage are solid but we have jack shit for 3 person marriage. 1) what does popularity have to do with it >< 2) good point; let's trail blaze polygamy in the name of liberty! | ||
|
KwarK
United States42181 Posts
On November 07 2008 23:41 HeadBangaa wrote: Hmm, I always figured that married couples received benefit from the government/society because of the ideal socialization context it provides (ie, its reproductive role). I can't reason why the government would care about "love" as some ideal in and of itself. That is a more interesting debate to me. I meant loving long term relationships for children to grow up in. But it's good for society for more reasons than just that. It's a stabilising factor. Commitment makes you get up and go to work each morning, keeps you out of prison etc. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
If I'm wrong, that is certainly the crux of my wrongness. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42181 Posts
On November 08 2008 00:00 HeadBangaa wrote: I do agree with your idealism here, I'm just not convinced that a homosexual relationship provides an ideal socialization for child rearing. If I'm wrong, that is certainly the crux of my wrongness. I don't see why it's a problem but there isn't any research into it so neither of us can say for sure whether children do better with heterosexual parents. That said, when you take the children from single mothers then maybe we can talk about taking the children from pairs of lesbian mothers. When one parent is enough then two should be better. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
You can't take a baby from a lesbian couple that didn't take the baby from a 3rd party source in the first place. (quick tangent: others have pointed out that marriage is not primarily concerned with reproduction. I disagree.) And I certainly don't think 1 parent is enough. For example, lack of a father figure is the #1 accurate predictor of drug abuse by young males. A consequence of our behavioral science.. On November 08 2008 00:02 Kwark wrote: I don't see why it's a problem but there isn't any research into it so neither of us can say for sure whether children do better with heterosexual parents. Oh there's research. It's just ridiculously slanted on both sides. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
| ||
