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

[Peter_Plato]

In passing, my definition is not what I think everyone should follow, just what I personally think a reasonable description.

I don’t get to do it. I just play with people who follow pretty much the same rules as me. As descibed in the link above. But I’m not insisting that eveyone must do the same.

Okay Bradski, let’s take on your definition for adequacy. You said:

How about this: marriage is the state in which two people, of an age to make mature decisions and not directly biologically connected, are in when they each make a committment to each other to spend the rest of their lives together in an intimate relationship.

If the state were to accept this as the legal definition, no where does it protect, legally, its own existence and the future of its “progeny” under any law by definition. True marriage, between a man and a woman undertaken to protect and care for their future progeny is now left entirely to heterosexual couples. The state has effectively “stepped back” from according them any special safeguard and left them to fend entirely for themselves since this endeavor of continuing human life is no longer anything of special concern to the state. That, in my eyes is an abdication of the very reason why the state should exist: to protect and safeguard its future by the protection of the only means by which its future can be propagated.

This is akin to a household being looked after under a “headship” of parents who decide they will allow anyone who wants to live in their home to stay regardless of whether they care about or or could do anything to promote the future of the household itself. Under this form of management, the household is doomed to being torn apart, since it has allowed those who only care for themselves and have no special concern for the household and for determining its future. A house divided against itself …

You will argue that the protection of procreation is not denied under your definition, but I will argue that it has been abandoned, left critically weakened and no longer receives sustenance of any form from the state because it is no longer of special concern but should be since it is the only means by which the state can generate itself in a form that can continue into the future. Heterosexual marriages should be of special concern under the law because of their very particular and critical contribution to the future existence of the state. The state is abdicating its responsibility by being negligent in assuring the rights of its future citizens.

Your definition has another weakness. Why the arbitrary number of 2 if the condition is “make a commitment to each other to spend the rest of their lives together in an intimate relationship?” Civil rights advocates are going to have a field day with this number, if commitment and intimacy are the only factors that define a marriage to be a marriage. Why can’t three or four enter into this commitment and intimacy? You, and the law, would have no basis upon which to contend.

The commitment must be inherently and consistently tied to the capacity to procreate or else it is a wide open field. Furthermore, the state would also have a basis upon which to define who or why certain individuals may enter into this legally sanctioned commitment. The reason is to protect the state’s future by ensuring only those properly disposed to look after young would take it on. A ten year old would not be ready. It could, as it does today, franchise the responsibility to other bodies such as churches that are in the proper position to assist in making these kinds of determinations.

Your definition, therefore, has been rendered an untenable and imprudent one based solely on political considerations.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Just thought I would lighten up the mood by linking to some pictures of some recent marriage licenses granted to LGBT couples, or as some people like to call it, the “destruction of society”

i.imgur.com/Zz8Im.jpg

i.imgur.com/TUJbI.jpg

Talk about priorities people…

All evil has a glamorous side to it, that’s why there is a “temptation” to be taken in by it.

Your high school education left you ill-prepared to assess reality. Judging by your posts, you could have a legal case.

 

[Ethan88]

All evil has a glamorous side to it, that’s why there is a “temptation” to be taken in by it.

So even you have a glamorous side?

Your high school education left you ill-prepared to assess reality. Judging by your posts, you could have a legal case.

If this isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what it is.

You assume much. You probably shouldn’t rely so much on ad hominem in your argument. I still havent’ seen any logical argument against polygamy, polygyny, incestual unions for sterile or non-reproducing adults, or unions with higher mammals.

What is missing in this case, applying strict scruntiny, would be a compelling interest for the state to overturn and redefine a cultural and religious institution that has stood for a millenia.

Simply put, there isn’t any.

Correct, which means, why are you against polygamy? If marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, then why wouldn’t polygamy fit that bill? Why wouldn’t an adult procreating with a teenager fit that bill?

 

[Stephen168]

So even you have a glamorous side?

If this isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what it is.

Correct, which means, why are you against polygamy? If marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, then why wouldn’t polygamy fit that bill? Why wouldn’t an adult procreating with a teenager fit that bill?

They would fit the bill. historically they have.

 

[Bible_is_truth]

Just an observation- it’s interesting that homosexuals want to be able to freely “marry” each other, but get indignant when these “marriages” are spoken of in the general vicinity of talk of multiple-party “marriages,” or brother “marrying” sister, or someone “marrying” a pet or livestock, or someone “marrying” their imaginary friend, or? It’s as if once homosexuals are allowed into the house of matrimony they want to slam and lock the door on all of the other good folks who want to get “married” after their own fashion too. Why should they care if uncle Bob and his of-age niece get “married,” or some cat lady wants to “marry” all 36 of her feline companions. It doesn’t harm or cheapen the homosexual “marriage…” does it? I mean, how could it?

I’m coming around to the point of view that anyone who wants to “marry” any other person or persons, any other being or inanimate object, even his or her own self, should be allowed to do so. In a world gone mad, what does it matter? There will still only be one*** marriage ***recognized by God.

Do you not believe God? Read his word of truth ,it will put you right on how you feel,otherwise we would all end up a bit…

 

[Peter_Plato]

If marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, then why wouldn’t polygamy fit that bill?

:doh2:

Simple logical deduction. A man, as in one (1) man and a woman, as in one (1) woman means, by definition (1+1) which excludes polygamy by definition. Simple deductive logic, Ethan. I would be looking for a lawyer about now.

A man who is already married to a woman would be married. If that man thought of becoming married to another woman then it would be a second marriage, but that does not mean only one marriage would exist. If he married another woman there would now exist two marriages, not one marriage with three people because the first wife is not “married” to the second wife. Except by a complete redefinition of what marriage is, which is precisely at issue.

Under Bradski’s definition this could not be excluded because there is nothing that would confine one person to one marriage, even if his “two party” condition of what a “marriage” is held up. A person could commit to another intimate lifelong relationship without negating the first.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Do you not believe God? Read his word of truth ,it will put you right on how you feel,otherwise we would all end up a bit…

She was being facetious. Read her posts!

 

[Peter_Plato]

So even you have a glamorous side?

I must warn you, if you are searching for a weakness in character, flattery will get you no where. I am hideously bound to truth and would have it no other way.

The alternative is cosmetics, but those only serve to flatter my ego which is the reason I am so hideous to begin with.

So, to answer your question: No, I don’t have a glamorous side!

 

[Ethan88]

They would fit the bill. historically they have.

So why are you against it?

:doh2:

Simple logical deduction. A man, as in one (1) man and a woman, as in one (1) woman means, by definition (1+1) which excludes polygamy by definition. Simple deductive logic, Ethan. I would be looking for a lawyer about now.

Peter, I’m not trying to sound facetious, but did you graduate high school? I’m not asking to be rude, I’m just trying to see if I should simplify the argument because you seem to be the only person who doesn’t get it.

Let me try to make it a bit simpler, I’ll pretend I’m writing this to my 8 year old nephew. If you start off with a position, without evidence, and then build off that position, it is a logical fallacy (a logical fallacy means your logic is bad). Meaning, if you say “I don’t agree with polygamy because it doesn’t fit the definition”, you are assuming we all agree with your premise. Earlier you confused marriage with sex and claimed marriage originated with the ‘dawking of mankind’, but you have no evidence. If sexual relations meant marriage, then every rapist and victim would be married.

Under Bradski’s definition this could not be excluded because there is nothing that would confine one person to one marriage, even if his “two party” condition of what a “marriage” is held up. A person could commit to another intimate lifelong relationship without negating the first.

Under what circumstance would one claim that the 2nd marriage be invalid? Not even Christianity speaks out against polygamy, or incest for that matter. Do you support marrying your own mother, peter?

I must warn you, if you are searching for a weakness in character, flattery will get you no where. I am hideously bound to truth and would have it no other way.

Unfortunately your truth and what human beings call ‘reality’ are at odds. There’s a reason mental hospitals are full of people following their own “truth”, lol.

 

[Peter_Plato]

We had a minister in the Opposition down here who tweeted something similar a few weeks back and the whole country wondered if he’s lost his mind. I mean seriously. Lift your game or leave the stadium, please.

Truth is democratically determined, then? And promoted by ridicule and coercion?

You must be proud of your great nation that flogging those who are dissenters to public opinion in the market square is a valued and credible means of determining truth and keeping everyone in step with it.

Let free speech be deified, but only when we, the majority, agree with it, otherwise stone the free speakers who have any semblance of courage left to contradict our democratically determined truths, no matter how short sighted.

I believe Socrates suffered a similar fate.

 

[Peter_Plato]

marriage originated with the ‘dawking of mankind’,

A Freudian slip? Or a Freudian lisp?

 

[Stephen168]

So why are you against it?

I’m not

 

[Peter_Plato]

Under what circumstance would one claim that the 2nd marriage be invalid? Not even Christianity speaks out against polygamy, or incest for that matter. Do you support marrying your own mother, peter?

Having a definition of marriage and determining who should enter into a marriage are two different questions. You have to start with the definition and then decide on the qualities of the individuals that would need to be in place to assure the success of the goals of marriage.

The fact that you cannot distinguish those two very critical features in the discussion makes me wonder if you can distinguish between reality and your beliefs about it.

If marriage, is properly defined as the “state” of being in a committed and loving procreative union established to safeguard the creation and continued well-being of human life, then discussion can focus on who can or should rightfully enter into that state. It could be and has been politically protected because common sense tells us there is something very special about creating and caring for new human beings, especially when they are at their most vulnerable - in the womb and during formative years.

All your blathering on says nothing about the above point

 

[Ethan88]

A Freudian slip? Or a Freudian lisp?

Was that a gay joke? Showing your intelligence with every post there Peter

I wonder if the moderators will reprimand you…

You have to start with the definition and then decide on the qualities of the individuals that would need to be in place to assure the success of the goals of marriage.

No, no no no no.

You see Peter, intelligent people don’t start off with an answer and then build evidence; quite the contrary. What we do is RESEARCH and THEN find a definition. If you start off with the premise of 1 + 1 equally 66, you’re gonna have some pretty awful arguments in support.

 

[fix]

You see Peter, intelligent people don’t start off with an answer and then build evidence; quite the contrary. What we do is RESEARCH and THEN find a definition. If you start off with the premise of 1 + 1 equally 66, you’re gonna have some pretty awful arguments in support.

Rational people start with a proper understanding of realty. Miss that and all else is error.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Unfortunately your truth and what human beings call ‘reality’ are at odds. There’s a reason mental hospitals are full of people following their own “truth”, lol.

What you mean is ‘reality’ determined by those human beings who “happen” to agree with you because you are certain that your own “truth” is reality.

Sometimes I wonder, watching the news in the evening, “Who are the ones inside the asylums?” Knowing that over 50 million American citizens have been butchered since Roe v Wade in the United States with the sanction, and perhaps even the blessing, of the majority of its present population convinces me that there is something radically wrong with what human beings today consider to be “reality.”

Which side of the asylum fence are you really on? I am not clear that is just a determination made by the greater number.

 

[Ethan88]

Rational people start with a proper understanding of realty. Miss that and all else is error.

What does real estate have to do with this?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Was that a gay joke?

Why? Is Dawkin[g]s gay?

 

[Ethan88]

What you mean is ‘reality’ determined by those human beings who “happen” to agree with you because you are certain that your own “truth” is reality.

Right, coming from the guy who claimed that “anthropologists were wrong and God was right”, assuming that God is on your side in this.

Sometimes I wonder, watching the news in the evening, “Who are the ones inside the asylums?” Knowing that over 50 million American citizens have been butchered since Roe v Wade in the United States with the sanction, and perhaps even the blessing, of the majority of its present population convinces me that there is something radically wrong with what human beings today consider to be “reality.”

Instead of wondering about it and focusing all your energy posting on the internet 24/7, why not look into it? Or is preventing the evil gays from marrying by arguing with them on the internet your first priority?

Which side of the asylum fence are you really on? I am not clear that is just a determination made by the greater number.

No offense, but I don’t answer stupid, incendiary questions.

Why? Is Dawkin[g]s gay?

See above

 

[Stephen168]

Correct, which means, why are you against polygamy? If marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, then why wouldn’t polygamy fit that bill? Why wouldn’t an adult procreating with a teenager fit that bill?

So you really don’t have a point. Are you against pedophile relationship?