Sure, it matters. Why all of sudden must society recognize some contrived item simply because some group calls for it.Dunno. Does it matter? Really?
Is voting the same thing as marriage?And how often has voting been for females?
Not about copying the past. It is about not concocting some goofy scheme in the present.I think you’ll find that even ancient Athens kept it for men only. I don’t see why we should copy the past.
But whether or not it has existed in the past shouldn’t affect whether or not we should allow same-sex marriage. The question really should be “Why shouldn’t society accept same-sex marriage?”Sure, it matters. Why all of sudden must society recognize some contrived item simply because some group calls for it.
It is not particularly wise to conclude that we have nothing to learn from the past and that the standards of virtually every society before our own can teach us nothing about what our own standards should be.But whether or not it has existed in the past shouldn’t affect whether or not we should allow same-sex marriage.
As I said earlier there are only two positions one can rationally take regarding the term “marriage”: the meaning is either defined by its nature or it is arbitrary. Arguing that marriage ought to encompass same sex couples is an argument that the term is arbitrary and once that determination is made there is no valid argument that would allow any restrictions at all on who - or what - one could marry. We are already seeing pressure in that direction: California recently debated a law allowing more than two people to marry; a woman in Washington wanted to marry a house; a Korean “married” a blow-up doll.The question really should be “Why shouldn’t society accept same-sex marriage?”
Maybe, but only if we’re learning from something that’s already happened. As same-sex marriage hasn’t been practised, we can’t use the past to help us.It is not particularly wise to conclude that we have nothing to learn from the past and that the standards of virtually every society before our own can teach us nothing about what our own standards should be.
It’s not meaningless, as it’s an important institution that allows relationships to be legally recongised, and therefore recieve certain benefits because of it. I don’t see how allowing two people of the same-sex would damage it in anyway. Polygamy, however, would as it basically means any amount of people could enter into a marriage without actually entering into a relationship - it corrupts the whole purpose of marriage. Of course, there are no physical restrictions on what marriage can become, this is true, but it needs to remain recognisable otherwise the whole purpose of the institute is destroyed. I don’t see how allowing same-sex marriage would in anyway damage it.As I said earlier there are only two positions one can rationally take regarding the term “marriage”: the meaning is either defined by its nature or it is arbitrary. Arguing that marriage ought to encompass same sex couples is an argument that the term is arbitrary and once that determination is made there is no valid argument that would allow any restrictions at all on who - or what - one could marry. We are already seeing pressure in that direction: California recently debated a law allowing more than two people to marry; a woman in Washington wanted to marry a house; a Korean “married” a blow-up doll.
This is an either-or choice: either marriage is the union of one man and one woman or the term means whatever we want it to … that is, it would be literally meaningless.
Ender
Speaking from a purely nuts and bolts perspective:But whether or not it has existed in the past shouldn’t affect whether or not we should allow same-sex marriage. The question really should be “Why shouldn’t society accept same-sex marriage?”
We are not talking about a new way to travel. We are talking about the fundamental unit of society. That it has never been done means that there must be a reason that it was never done. We do not just reinvent something so fundamental as if we are smarter or more moral or more logical than the past because we talk on cell phones and watch TV.But whether or not it has existed in the past shouldn’t affect whether or not we should allow same-sex marriage. The question really should be “Why shouldn’t society accept same-sex marriage?”
Well, the only thing you’ve addressed there is why love is not a reason, and that’s pretty much it. I don’t understand why, if two people of the same-sex are in a monogamous relationship, they shouldn’t be entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual couples.-SNIP-
Well, homosexuality was looked upon so badly mainly because of religious reasons. And, I do believe we are smarter, and more moral, and more logical than in the past, and it has nothing to do with cell phones or TV.We are not talking about a new way to travel. We are talking about the fundamental unit of society. That it has never been done means that there must be a reason that it was never done. We do not just reinvent something so fundamental as if we are smarter or more moral or more logical than the past because we talk on cell phones and watch TV.
Why should society not accept it?
Because marriage only includes male and female
Maybe, but only if we’re learning from something that’s already happened. As same-sex marriage hasn’t been practised, we can’t use the past to help us.
It’s not meaningless, as it’s an important institution that allows relationships to be legally recongised, and therefore recieve certain benefits because of it. I don’t see how allowing two people of the same-sex would damage it in anyway. Polygamy, however, would as it basically means any amount of people could enter into a marriage without actually entering into a relationship - it corrupts the whole purpose of marriage. Of course, there are no physical restrictions on what marriage can become, this is true, but it needs to remain recognisable otherwise the whole purpose of the institute is destroyed. I don’t see how allowing same-sex marriage would in anyway damage it.
Well, once the term is defined it has a meaning so in that sense it’s not meaningless, but if the definition is arbitrary then the word has no intrinsic meaning and we can in fact define it in such a way as to include the “marriage” of a herd of cows.It’s not meaningless…
This is also true of the definitions of corporations and LLC’s, which are completely artificial, legal constructs. This is what marriage would be reduced to.… as it’s an important institution that allows relationships to be legally recongised, and therefore recieve certain benefits because of it.
I’m sure polygamists would emphatically denounce your assertion that they don’t enter into a relationship and I see no reason to doubt that that is exactly what they have. As for corrupting the purpose of marriage … what is that and where is it defined? How can you claim that marriage has an intrinsic purpose when you can’t even defend the idea that it has an intrinsic definition?I don’t see how allowing two people of the same-sex would damage it in anyway. Polygamy, however, would as it basically means any amount of people could enter into a marriage without actually entering into a relationship - it corrupts the whole purpose of marriage.
The argument to allow same-sex marriage involves the recognition that the term “marriage” has no intrinsic meaning, that it is arbitrary, and can be set by the state to mean whatever it chooses. The only other alternative is that the definition is not arbitrary and cannot be changed. This is an all or nothing proposition. Any change, no matter how small, surrenders the principle that marriage is a natural institution and once that principle has been sacrificed there is no logical barrier that would restrict any conceivable relationship from being called a marriage.Of course, there are no physical restrictions on what marriage can become, this is true, but it needs to remain recognisable otherwise the whole purpose of the institute is destroyed. I don’t see how allowing same-sex marriage would in anyway damage it.
You can believe in the tooth fairy, does not mean it is real.Well, homosexuality was looked upon so badly mainly because of religious reasons. And, I do believe we are smarter, and more moral, and more logical than in the past, and it has nothing to do with cell phones or TV.
Well, no, but judging by the fact that people are less superstitious, have access to better education and are generally more knowledgeable I think my view on our intelligence compared to those of people living in the past was justified, unlike belief in the tooth fairy.You can believe in the tooth fairy, does not mean it is real.
Well, sure.Well, once the term is defined it has a meaning so in that sense it’s not meaningless, but if the definition is arbitrary then the word has no intrinsic meaning and we can in fact define it in such a way as to include the “marriage” of a herd of cows.
Well, I don’t really believe it’s much more than that - it’s just a legal union between two people (currently a man and a woman) that allows them the right to certain benefits. The loving relationship can exist with or without the marriage. The marriage just makes their life a whole lot easier.This is also true of the definitions of corporations and LLC’s, which are completely artificial, legal constructs. This is what marriage would be reduced to.
Well, marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman. That’s what it is, but the purpose it serves is to give two people in a relationship legal benefits. If you allow polygamy, then the whole purpose becomes destroyed by the fact that as many people as possible can enter the relationship. Of course, some polygamists may remain faithful to their partners, but the fact that it could be abused so easily pretty much means it’s a bad idea.I’m sure polygamists would emphatically denounce your assertion that they don’t enter into a relationship and I see no reason to doubt that that is exactly what they have. As for corrupting the purpose of marriage … what is that and where is it defined? How can you claim that marriage has an intrinsic purpose when you can’t even defend the idea that it has an intrinsic definition?
Well, I believe the legalisation of divorce, the leglisation of adultery and the way marriage has been played around with in the past (such as the raising of the age required to get married) has already proven that its meaning is arbitrary, and can be changed by the state. However, I disagree that there is no logical barrier to stop people messing with it. For example, if we allow polygamy then the whole purpose of marriage is destroyed.The argument to allow same-sex marriage involves the recognition that the term “marriage” has no intrinsic meaning, that it is arbitrary, and can be set by the state to mean whatever it chooses. The only other alternative is that the definition is not arbitrary and cannot be changed. This is an all or nothing proposition. Any change, no matter how small, surrenders the principle that marriage is a natural institution and once that principle has been sacrificed there is no logical barrier that would restrict any conceivable relationship from being called a marriage.
Ender
“benefits” So, it’s all about subsidize my living arrangements? That’s not a reason. And I don’t understand where this monogamous idea comes from.Well, the only thing you’ve addressed there is why love is not a reason, and that’s pretty much it. I don’t understand why, if two people of the same-sex are in a monogamous relationship, they shouldn’t be entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual couples.
Well, homosexuality was looked upon so badly mainly because of religious reasons. And, I do believe we are smarter, and more moral, and more logical than in the past, and it has nothing to do with cell phones or TV.
If, as you claim, marriage is the union of a man and a woman how can you suggest that it should be extended to two men or two women? That seems a bit like giving a definition of a leg and then saying it should be expanded to include tails.Well, I don’t really believe it’s much more than that - it’s just a legal union between two people…Well, marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman. That’s what it is…
I wonder that this doesn’t strike you as just a bit preposterous. Do you actually know people who have gotten married just to receive legal benefits? I expect that that occasionally happens but it should be blindingly obvious that most marriages would occur whether or not there were legal benefits involved. You might note that marriages have occurred throughout history and among cultures where there were no legal benefits to confer. You have reduced marriage to a business contract and nothing more.… but the purpose it serves is to give two people in a relationship legal benefits.
You have defined marriage as people in a relationship who receive legal benefits; why should the benefits be limited to only two people? Why cannot marriage as a business arrangement allow more partners; why the insistence on only two?If you allow polygamy, then the whole purpose becomes destroyed by the fact that as many people as possible can enter the relationship.
Who are you to judge polygamists? Besides, marriage according to your definition is a business contract and businesses are dissolved and re-formed all the time. Where does the idea of faithfulness come from? It certainly isn’t deducible from your definition.Of course, some polygamists may remain faithful to their partners, but the fact that it could be abused so easily pretty much means it’s a bad idea.
If you believe this then on what basis do you argue for the arbitrary limit of two people per marriage? If its meaning is arbitrary then what justification is there for putting any limits on it?Well, I believe the legalisation of divorce, the leglisation of adultery and the way marriage has been played around with in the past (such as the raising of the age required to get married) has already proven that its meaning is arbitrary, and can be changed by the state.
Not at all. If the purpose is simply to confer legal benefits and if we accept that marriage is a good thing - and I think we must if we deem it proper to reward it - then it follows that the more people who marry, the better things are. If a little is good, why is not more better? If the objective of marriage is to receive legal benefits then if more people marry more benefits will be received.However, I disagree that there is no logical barrier to stop people messing with it. For example, if we allow polygamy then the whole purpose of marriage is destroyed.
Nonsense. You confuse aquired knowledge with intelligence.Well, no, but judging by the fact that people are less superstitious, have access to better education and are generally more knowledgeable I think my view on our intelligence compared to those of people living in the past was justified, unlike belief in the tooth fairy.