Unrestricted "marriage" for everyone and everything- why not?

[thewanderer]

Basically what I am saying is that if you want to work towards getting SS couples included in the legal contract of marriage then go ahead and do so, **so long as you also work to get non-sexually involved people included as well. **Just don’t go around advocating solely for SS couples to be included.

 

[Ethan88]

Basically what I am saying is that if you want to work towards getting SS couples included in the legal contract of marriage then go ahead and do so, **so long as you also work to get non-sexually involved people included as well. **Just don’t go around advocating solely for SS couples to be included.

thewandered, that’s ridiculous.

What you’re basically saying is that advocates for SS marriage have to fight for every kind of marriage otherwise the intentions are skewed? Isn’t that like saying that unless the Catholic League points out each and every derogatory comment on television (as opposed to what to the ones directed at Christians/Catholics) then they’re being hypocritical?

Fact is this, unless you can give a legitimate reason as to why polygamy (just an example) should not be legalized, then pinning the onus on SS marriage advocates is ludicrous. That’s like someone who only wants white men to vote claiming that unless women support the right of criminals, babies, and animals to vote…then women’s suffrage should not be granted.

Also, I’d really appreciate if you could respond to some of my points in the last post, I felt I made some good rebuttals.

 

[tskrobacz]

It denies the truth of our religion to support same sex marriage…

Remember that truth exists only when something is true all the time and everywhere. In early Christianity, St. Vincent gave us the first known definition of the word “catholic”. In his classic Patristic text, he says that this is the way we could discern the truth from heresy:

"Now in the catholic church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. This alone is truly and properly ‘catholic’, as it is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which means universality.

 

[thewanderer]

thewandered, that’s ridiculous.

What you’re basically saying is that advocates for SS marriage have to fight for every kind of marriage otherwise the intentions are skewed? Isn’t that like saying that unless the Catholic League points out each and every derogatory comment on television (as opposed to what to the ones directed at Christians/Catholics) then they’re being hypocritical?

Fact is this, unless you can give a legitimate reason as to why polygamy (just an example) should not be legalized, then pinning the onus on SS marriage advocates is ludicrous. That’s like someone who only wants white men to vote claiming that unless women support the right of criminals, babies, and animals to vote…then women’s suffrage should not be granted.

Also, I’d really appreciate if you could respond to some of my points in the last post, I felt I made some good rebuttals.

I would reply to them if they applied to me, but they don’t. Wow. I am actually absolutely shocked that despite the fact that I clearly admitted to you that I haven’t made my mind up as to what the government-created legal contract of marriage should be based on, or even whether it ought to exist you are still trying to “rebutt” my non-existant opinions. Honestly, if you can’t even read what I am saying with enough coprehension to realize that I am not neither advocating for or against changing the current definition of the legal contract of marriage than this conversation is really not going to be able to go any further. If I brought up a whole bunch of arguments against something that you do not hold as true and used them to argue with you and kept insisting that you try to anwer my arguments even after you assured me you do not hold the positions I am arguing against you would be pretty pissed and upset with me for misrepresenting you and refusing to listen to you. Well that is exactly what you are doing to me. So as I asked you before please stop making assumptions about what I do and do not hold.

 

[Ethan88]

I would reply to them if they applied to me, but they don’t.

Yet you want people for SS marriage to defend everything that doesn’t apply to them.

Honestly, if you can’t even read what I am saying with enough coprehension

Not only is this sentence ironic, it’s also demeaning and unchristian. You might as well stop arguing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So why can’t two men or two women who have a platonic best-friend relationship have a totally platonic marriage with each other???

It wouldn’t be a marriage. We already have a name for it: friendship. Why create ambiguity by making definitions more murky than they already are?

Marriage is the lifelong commitment of a man and woman who come together for the procreative intent of having offspring and caring for each other and their progeny.

Why does this need to be redefined?

Come up with new words to define some other state, but why redefine something that has a reality of its own? A same sex union or some other “loving” relationship is not what is adequately defined above as marriage. These other states mean something else, quite entirely.

There might be legal justification for extending something like tax or beneficiary benefits to other relationships, but there is no need to redefine the meaning of marriage, just change tax laws to include other relationships under the law. What is the point of muddling terms?

While we’re at it, let’s call all animals, “humans,” all planets, “Earths” and all cars, “Buicks,” just because we don’t like definitional precision. It’s nonsense. If we’re really thorough, we could trim the English dictionary down to just a few thousand words.

 

[Bradski]

Marriage is the lifelong commitment of a man and woman who come together for the procreative intent of having offspring and caring for each other and their progeny.

I don’t think I could disagree with that.

But I would drop the gender distinctions. There are lots of places that don’t bother with it these days. And most people (including over half of Catholics I believe) don’t have a problem with it.

And probably take out the procreation. Nobody is going to agree that old people or those with disabilities or traumatic injuries shouldn’t get married. Let alone those who don’t want to have children. Imagine the uproar! (is it only the Catholic Church that insists on it?)

Oh, and add something about mature consent if you could. We don’t want people marrying children. You might add an age if you felt so inclined. Fourteen say?

And just one more thing. Exclude close familial connections. Obvious reasons, as I’m sure you’re aware.

Otherwise I reckon you’ve just about nailed it.

 

[Ethan88]

It wouldn’t be a marriage. We already have a name for it: friendship. Why create ambiguity by making definitions more murky than they already are?

Marriage is the lifelong commitment of a man and woman who come together for the procreative intent of having offspring and caring for each other and their progeny.

Who’s definition is that? Where did marriage originate and who were the first two people married?

Why does this need to be redefined?

Come up with new words to define some other state, but why redefine something that has a reality of its own? A same sex union or some other “loving” relationship is not what is adequately defined above as marriage. These other states mean something else, quite entirely.

I’m afraid you’re simply wrong, Peter.

Do you or do you know the history of the word marriage, its evolution, its etymology, and its history? I’m not trying to sound facetious, as this is an extremely important and necessary foundation to understand.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t think I could disagree with that.

But I would drop the gender distinctions. There are lots of places that don’t bother with it these days. And most people (including over half of Catholics I believe) don’t have a problem with it.

And probably take out the procreation. Nobody is going to agree that old people or those with disabilities or traumatic injuries shouldn’t get married. Let alone those who don’t want to have children. Imagine the uproar! (is it only the Catholic Church that insists on it?)

Oh, and add something about mature consent if you could. We don’t want people marrying children. You might add an age if you felt so inclined. Fourteen say?

And just one more thing. Exclude close familial connections. Obvious reasons, as I’m sure you’re aware.

Otherwise I reckon you’ve just about nailed it.

Reality isn’t changed because it’s redefined. The definition is supposed to capture the reality. You have just butchered what was a clear definition into a nebulous mess that could be opened to even more adjustments by anyone else who cares to add their two cents worth of imprecision.

The point would be to capture the reality of what is with a fitting definition not render the definition so obtuse that it becomes meaningless and applicable to anything you care to throw into the pit of a daffynition. Thanks your contribution!

 

[Faithdancer]

Surely one can get consent from their immaginary friend or their fav stufffed animal without question…even if no one else can hear it…

Exactly. Once gender and number are irrelevant, why are matter or plush matter vs. flesh and blood relevant?

Let us throw the doors to legal “marriage” open to all and sundry!

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m afraid you’re simply wrong, Peter.

Do you or do you know the history of the word marriage, its evolution, its etymology, and its history? I’m not trying to sound facetious, as this is an extremely important and necessary foundation to understand.

Nonsense! The reality of what marriage as a specific reality is, is very clear. There have been all kinds of misconceptions about it in history. So what? People had all kinds of misconceptions about the spread of disease, as well. It doesn’t mean we have to allow silly notions from the past into what can be defined in clear terms. You are not advocating clarity of thought but intentional cloudiness to push a political agenda. Let’s redefine medical knowledge by allowing every incoherent historical thought about the practice of medicine just because it occurred to someone at any time before the present. Sure, if you are trying to promote ambiguity of language and thought. Thank you for your 2 cents, as well.

Your contribution amounts to: "Let’s call every past mode of transportation that had wheels, a Buick."

The word is precision, not obfuscation!

 

[Faithdancer]

Reality isn’t changed because it’s redefined. The definition is supposed to capture the reality. You have just butchered what was a clear definition into a nebulous mess that could be opened to even more adjustments by anyone else who cares to add their two cents worth of imprecision.

The point would be to capture the reality of what is with a fitting definition not render the definition so obtuse that it becomes meaningless and applicable to anything you care to throw into the pit of a daffynition. Thanks your contribution!

Yes, and prohibiting close familial marriage on the basis that there may be an increased incidence of birth defects is unfair, since homosexual activity is also linked to an increased incidence of a variety of diseases which are far more prevalent in the homosexual than in the heterosexual population!

 

[thewanderer]

Yet you want people for SS marriage to defend everything that doesn’t apply to them.

no, not at all. I began by honestly seeking to figure out if people who held a certain point of view could give me a better explanation for their point of view than the only one I currently see as a possible explanation for it. I asked you politely to try to explain this to me if you happen to be one of the people ho advocate for SS couples without advocating for people who are not romantically involved. In reply you started making all sorts of assumptions about my opinions on things and attacking me. It was only after that that I became more argumentative and defensive. I am not in this conversation to try and prove that legal marriage shouldn’t be extended to SS couples. I am here asking an honest question looking for an honest answer from people who hold the point of view which I do not understand. If you are not willing to help me with that then thats fine, don’t respond to my posts, but for goodness sakes don’t start attacking someone who is politely and sincerely asking you a question about something they truly do not understand.

Not only is this sentence ironic, it’s also demeaning and unchristian. You might as well stop arguing.

Perhaps that was worded too strongly, Im sorry if it came across too harshly, but honestly, I had already written a post wherein I specially bolded the sentence where I told you that I do not have a set opinion about this matter yet and despite that you continued to respond to me as though you were arguing against my (non-existant) opinion. That makes it look either as though you didn’t bother to read what I wrote or you didn’t bother to take the time to actually understand what I was saying.

Also, just a fun fact but in implying that my reading comprehension is also subpar through your “ironic” jab, you end up applying “demeaning” and “unchristian” to your own post.

 

[livingwordunity]

I think that Rush Limbaugh captured the difference between conservative and liberal ideology when he said that conservatives live in Realville, and liberals live on Fantasy Island.

 

[Ethan88]

Exactly. Once gender and number are irrelevant, why are matter or plush matter vs. flesh and blood relevant?

Let us throw the doors to legal “marriage” open to all and sundry!

This argument applies against opposite sex marriages as well.

Nonsense! The reality of what marriage as a specific reality is, is very clear. There have been all kinds of misconceptions about it in history. So what? People had all kinds of misconceptions about the spread of disease, as well. It doesn’t mean we have to allow silly notions from the past into what can be defined in clear terms. You are not advocating clarity of thought but intentional cloudiness to push a political agenda. Let’s redefine medical knowledge by allowing every incoherent historical thought about the practice of medicine just because it occurred to someone at any time before the present. Sure, if you are trying to promote ambiguity of language and thought. Thank you for your 2 cents, as well.

Your contribution amounts to: "Let’s call every past mode of transportation that had wheels, a Buick."

The word is precision, not obfuscation!

lol.

Show me the evidence Peter. Did you even read my question? I asked you specifically where marriage originated and who defined it, and then you went on a tangent about every historical definition in the past being wrong but your definition, which is not only ridiculous, it’s being ignorant of historical facts.

Yes, and prohibiting close familial marriage on the basis that there may be an increased incidence of birth defects is unfair, since homosexual activity is also linked to an increased incidence of a variety of diseases which are far more prevalent in the homosexual than in the heterosexual population!

So what about relationships between 50 year olds and teenagers if they’re of the opposite sex? Also, suggesting that homosexuality is bad because of the variety of std’s is ridiculous.

Yes, the highest rate of HIV transmission rates occur amongst gay men. Worldwide, it’s opposite sex relationships.

Want to know the lowest rate of ANY relationship? Gay women.

 

[Ethan88]

no, not at all. I began by honestly seeking to figure out if people who held a certain point of view could give me a better explanation for their point of view than the only one I currently see as a possible explanation for it. I asked you politely to try to explain this to me if you happen to be one of the people ho advocate for SS couples without advocating for people who are not romantically involved. In reply you started making all sorts of assumptions about my opinions on things and attacking me. It was only after that that I became more argumentative and defensive. I am not in this conversation to try and prove that legal marriage shouldn’t be extended to SS couples. I am here asking an honest question looking for an honest answer from people who hold the point of view which I do not understand. If you are not willing to help me with that then thats fine, don’t respond to my posts, but for goodness sakes don’t start attacking someone who is politely and sincerely asking you a question about something they truly do not understand.

I see, so you ignored the questions because you didn’t have a horse in the race, understood. I’m also glad that I answered your questions in previous posts of mine, which I’m sure you’ll get to eventually.

I think that Rush Limbaugh captured the difference between conservative and liberal ideology when he said that conservatives live in Realville, and liberals live on Fantasy Island.

Quoting…Rush…Limbaugh

 

[Peter_Plato]

Show me the evidence Peter. Did you even read my question? I asked you specifically where marriage originated and who defined it,

Marriage is the intimate sexual union of a man and woman who join together for the creation of offspring and thereby take on the responsibility for the health and well-being of their biological family unit through their commitment to it. That is the reality captured definitionally in words, more or less adequately.

It doesn’t matter if that reality was called by some other name in some other language or if the word “marriage” was mistakenly applied by some to some other reality. The fact is that from the dawn of humankind, that reality has existed and has come to be generally accepted as what we mean by the word, “marriage.” Humankind could not have persisted without that reality. Who first gave a name to the reality and defined the reality in words is irrelevant. As a reality it originated with the dawning of human kind.

Bacteria, have existed since shortly after life began on this planet. Bacteria are a well-defined and very real group of microbes, often misunderstood and often misidentified, but they have persisted through time independently of our understanding of them. That variety of microbes has, thanks to scientific clarity been carefully defined and characterized because of a commitment to exclude things that don’t properly fit the defined profile. If someone, like you were to come along and insist that viruses should be called bacteria because they have “similar” features but don’t precisely fit the accepted profile, you would be dismissed as attempting to add ambiguity to a concept that has come to be clearly identified. Your argument actually detracts from current understanding, it doesn’t add anything, especially when you attempt to go all “historical” on us.

…and then you went on a tangent about every historical definition in the past being wrong but your definition, which is not only ridiculous, it’s being ignorant of historical facts.

Now if, in your defense, you cite verifiable notions that were entertained somewhere in the historical past, those pieces of interesting trivia do not add the least to clarity or to your case. If the common understanding 500 years ago was that bacteria were very tiny scorpions, that is not a reason for including scorpions in our present classification of bacteria, no matter how much traction you get among like-minded, but confused folk, that might be enamored by the idea that scorpions should be included to be “nice” to those much maligned creatures.

Why should a very clearly defined term be expanded to reduce its meaning, when alternative terminology better captures the reality of those other types of relationships?
Your argument is weak but clearly has traction because some prefer being muddle-headed and blunted in their understanding.

This argument applies against opposite sex marriages as well.

No it doesn’t. It is misapplied.

It is still the intimate sexual union of a man and woman who join together for the creation of offspring and thereby take on the responsibility for the health and well-being of their biological family unit through their commitment to it.

The mere fact that they are not successful does not nullify their intent and unity as a biologically complimentary couple. It may be a reproductively unsuccessful marriage, but still a marriage.

A doctor who has all the requisite training and skills to be an obstetrician does not become one only when he has actually delivered a baby. All the requisite conditions are met for the definition to apply.

 

[Faithdancer]

Also, suggesting that homosexuality is bad because of the variety of std’s is ridiculous. Yes, the highest rate of HIV transmission rates occur amongst gay men. Worldwide, it’s opposite sex relationships.

There are pathologies with a far higher prevalence among homosexual men then among heterosexuals, which are directly related to the sexual practices of homosexual men. I’m not going to draw a picture…the medical statistics are indisputable.

 

[Bradski]

Nonsense! The reality of what marriage as a specific reality is, is very clear.

It appears that you want to define it in a way that denies reality. Do you really believe that people, outside of the Catholic Church (and even a majority within it), would deny marriage to couples who are incapable of procreation? The definition of marriage, what it means to people in different parts of the world, even in different parts of the same country, and at different times, has never been a constant. It means what people want it to mean – to them.

Good grief, I even had to pay a dowry to marry my wife. It was part of the process. If I hadn’t promised the money I could not have got married. Was that marriage? I guess mine wouldn’t count as far as you’re concerned. And neither would the vast majority of marriages taking place on a daily basis around the planet. Not that it matters in the least. We’re all getting on with life while you demand that the world stands still for a minute while YOU explain what YOU want everyone else to do.

I really don’t think that you realise how small your arguments look to the rest of the world. Well, the bits that might actually take the time to listen to them anyway.

Yes, and prohibiting close familial marriage on the basis that there may be an increased incidence of birth defects is unfai…

Who is using that argument? Do you think that close family members should marry? Probably not and neither do I. And we both believe it’s because a mother or a father or a brother or sister should not take advantage of a close biological and familial relationship to develop an intimate relationship of an entirely different kind.

And I’ve been chasing you with a question for I don’t know how long because you asked why I thought a couple should be mature enough to make a decision to marry (obviously so that consent would be part of the criteria) and I asked you what age you’d consider being acceptable. The Church says 14 and I’d say the church is wrong in this as I believe it is on other associated matters.

Now the church raised that age from twelve (twelve?!) back in around 1930 I believe, so it obviously can change its definition of what is acceptable in a marriage. So do you think that 14 is OK? If not, do you think they should change it? And if they change it, do you think they coul change other criteria?

 

[Ethan88]

Marriage is the intimate sexual union of a man and woman who join together for the creation of offspring and thereby take on the responsibility for the health and well-being of their biological family unit through their commitment to it. That is the reality captured definitionally in words, more or less adequately.

It doesn’t matter if that reality was called by some other name in some other language or if the word “marriage” was mistakenly applied by some to some other reality. The fact is that from the dawn of humankind, that reality has existed and has come to be generally accepted as what we mean by the word, “marriage.” Humankind could not have persisted without that reality. Who first gave a name to the reality and defined the reality in words is irrelevant. As a reality it originated with the dawning of human kind.

Bacteria, have existed since shortly after life began on this planet. Bacteria are a well-defined and very real group of microbes, often misunderstood and often misidentified, but they have persisted through time independently of our understanding of them. That variety of microbes has, thanks to scientific clarity been carefully defined and characterized because of a commitment to exclude things that don’t properly fit the defined profile. If someone, like you were to come along and insist that viruses should be called bacteria because they have “similar” features but don’t precisely fit the accepted profile, you would be dismissed as attempting to add ambiguity to a concept that has come to be clearly identified. Your argument actually detracts from current understanding, it doesn’t add anything, especially when you attempt to go all “historical” on us.

1st paragraph repeated what you said but ignored my question on the origins of marriage; I really do not care for your opinion on marriage, I’m looking sources.

2nd paragraph ended with marriage originating with human kind which is 1, factually incorrect and 2, bizarre. No anthropologist worth their salt would ever, EVER make a ridiculous conclusion up to and including Catholic ones.

3rd paragraph talked about ‘bacteria’ but lead nowhere.

Now if, in your defense, you cite verifiable notions that were entertained somewhere in the historical past, those pieces of interesting trivia do not add the least to clarity or to your case. If the common understanding 500 years ago was that bacteria were very tiny scorpions, that is not a reason for including scorpions in our present classification of bacteria, no matter how much traction you get among like-minded, but confused folk, that might be enamored by the idea that scorpions should be included to be “nice” to those much maligned creatures.

Why should a very clearly defined term be expanded to reduce its meaning, when alternative terminology better captures the reality of those other types of relationships?
Your argument is weak but clearly has traction because some prefer being muddle-headed and blunted in their understanding.

Wait…what???

Scorpions? Bacteria? What are you talking about??? Also, the “verificable notions” you credited me for werent’ triva, they wete fact. Peter, are you trolling me?

No it doesn’t. It is misapplied.

It is still the intimate sexual union of a man and woman who join together for the creation of offspring and thereby take on the responsibility for the health and well-being of their biological family unit through their commitment to it.

Excuse me, it’s perfectly applied.

If marriage exists solely for the procreation between a man and a woman then why are you against polygamy? Why are you against a 50 year old procreating with a teenage girl? Why do you insist on skipping over this question for the 3rd time?