Definition of marriage

[MtnBiker]

If the definition of marriage is not a marriage between one man and one woman, then what is the definition of marriage? Or what should it be?

Some say two men should be able to marry and that two women should be able to marry. Well why stop there. Why deny rights to polygamistis? Or a man or woman from marrying their adult child? There could even be people that want to marry their pets? Why deny their rights?

[Insein]

My position has always been homosexuals should be allowed to have civil unions and receive all the benefits that the government gives married couples through law. It just makes sense.

However, marriage is a religious sacrament. It should be the Church's sole discretion as to whether or not they will allow them to celebrate their civil union as a marriage. There shall be no law created to infringe upon the rights of religous freedom. If a religion doesn't acknowledge a civil union as a marriage in the Church's eye, then you have to respect that religion's decision. People trying to force religions to conform to laws that contradict their basic beliefs is against the first ammendment's freedom of religious persecution.

[MtnBiker]

Well, what about 2 people that are married at the court house and had nothing to do with a church?

[Insein]

Technically, its not marriage through a church. All government "marriages" are basically civil unions. They are "married" together to get the benefits of being a married couple either because a church denied them that request or they are looking for a quicker arrangement. Either way I have no problem with them wanting to join together.

This whole argument is about semantics. Allow gays to have a civil union or let them establish a church where they can get "married." The bottomline is, they should have the same tax privileges as a married couple. Thats my whole stance on the argument. The philosophical end doesn't concern me. Equality should be an easy enough thing to do.

[glockmail]

Technically, its not marriage through a church. ....Bullshit. The Church has been around a lot longer than the guv'mint.

[Insein]

Bullshit. The Church has been around a lot longer than the guv'mint.

No you misunderstood. I meant that the marriage by the government is not technically a marriage. It's only a civil union. Marriage is a religious union and should stay as such.

But gays should be allowed to have civil unions.

[Little-Acorn]

If the definition of marriage is not a marriage between one man and one woman,
It is. In some areas there might be more than one of one of the genders, but there is always man and woman.


then what is the definition of marriage?
See answer A.


Or what should it be?
See answer A.

The gay activists are bending over backward (oops, wrong image) exercising the advice of their mentor from a couple generations back, who said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will believe it, and it will become the truth.

Making proper fools of themselves while they do it, too.

:poke:

[theHawk]

I'm with President Obama and Hillary Clinton on this one: Marriage is between a man and a woman.

[jimnyc]

If the definition of marriage is not a marriage between one man and one woman, then what is the definition of marriage?

In my book it will ALWAYS be between one man and one woman. They can legalize marriage for the diseased queers in every state but it won't change my definition. Even if their marriages are legally recognized, I will still see them as freaks of nature - and no amount of protesting by them will ever change that.

[Mr. P]

Pick one.


n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but
usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

5. My Definition: Till death do we part.

[MtnBiker]

Pick one.


n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but
usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

5. My Definition: Till death do we part.


"1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

Would that legal union include a man marrying his adult female child?

Why is polygamy omitted from the definition? That could include; Till death do we part.

[Mr. P]

"1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

Would that legal union include a man marrying his adult female child?

Why is polygamy omitted from the definition? That could include; Till death do we part.

My definition of "marriage" is only what I'm addressing. Not the societal accepted norms or unaccepted practices.

[MtnBiker]

My definition of "marriage" is only what I'm addressing. Not the societal accepted norms or unaccepted practices.

Understood.

It should be regonized that there are those that wish to see the definition of marriage expanded and see that expansion as a protection of their "rights". It should also be regonized that there could be other minority groups that will also seek "rights". This will continue until a legal definition is applied for each state and some minority groups can argue unfair treatment if another minority group has already been granted certian rights.

[sgtdmski]

Insein hit the nail on the head. It is all about changing the definition of the word marriage. What better way to frame the argument and change the debate than to change the meaning of the word that is causing the controversy. All one has to do is look at California to know that this is true.

Under California code, homosexuals are allowed domestic partnerships, which carry the same rights and benefits as marriage. So if it were not about changing the definition of the word, what is all the outcry from the gays in California over the recognition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Anytime you ask the gays they talk about rights, yet in California they already have those rights. But they will always come back to rights. It is all a lie. They want the word, plain and simple.

dmk

[actsnoblemartin]

so loving you are

:lol:


In my book it will ALWAYS be between one man and one woman. They can legalize marriage for the diseased queers in every state but it won't change my definition. Even if their marriages are legally recognized, I will still see them as freaks of nature - and no amount of protesting by them will ever change that.

[actsnoblemartin]

until 1967 blacks and whites couldnt marry so marriage has already been redefined.

gays, not queers, or any other derogatory word you people can come up with, should be allowed to marry 1 person of their choosing.

[Silver]

It is. In some areas there might be more than one of one of the genders, but there is always man and woman.

Then it wouldn't be ONE you fool....


See answer A.



See answer A.

The gay activists are bending over backward (oops, wrong image) exercising the advice of their mentor from a couple generations back, who said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will believe it, and it will become the truth.

Making proper fools of themselves while they do it, too.

:poke:a

[theHawk]

until 1967 blacks and whites couldnt marry so marriage has already been redefined.

gays, not queers, or any other derogatory word you people can come up with, should be allowed to marry 1 person of their choosing.

Any gay is already allowed to marry any person of their choosing. You are inferring they can't.

The debate over "gay marriage" isn't about allowing or tolerating gay marriage, because it already is allowed and tolerated. If it wasn't tolerated there would be laws on the books outlawing the religious ceremony known as marriage between people of the same sex. There are no such laws. Nobody has ever been thrown in jail for getting married to someone of the same sex.

Its about forcing the rest of society to recognize their "marriage" through government.

Its ironic that the same block of people who so avidly believe in "separation of church and state" are pushing for government involvement in a religious ceremony. Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe it.

[MtnBiker]

gays, not queers, or any other derogatory word you people can come up with, should be allowed to marry 1 person of their choosing.

You support the right for one gay may to marry another. Why would you not support the right for a bisexual man to marry another man and woman at the same time. Or 2 bisexual women and 2 bisexual men to all marry each other at the same time. Such marriages would not harm you, why would you not support such marriages after supporting two gay people becoming married?

[Insein]

Polygamy is illegal. Being gay is not.

[MtnBiker]

Polygamy is illegal. Being gay is not.

Well that is a good point. In most states two people of the same sex being married is not legal. However there are advocates seeking rights for that minority group, it stand to reason that the polygamy minority should seek equal rights as well. My point being, if someone support gay marriage shouldn't support also be for other marriages as well?

[emmett]

Any gay is already allowed to marry any person of their choosing. You are inferring they can't.

The debate over "gay marriage" isn't about allowing or tolerating gay marriage, because it already is allowed and tolerated. If it wasn't tolerated there would be laws on the books outlawing the religious ceremony known as marriage between people of the same sex. There are no such laws. Nobody has ever been thrown in jail for getting married to someone of the same sex.

Its about forcing the rest of society to recognize their "marriage" through government.

Its ironic that the same block of people who so avidly believe in "separation of church and state" are pushing for government involvement in a religious ceremony. Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe it.


What he said.

[actsnoblemartin]

I think we should draw the line at one person, and one person


You support the right for one gay may to marry another. Why would you not support the right for a bisexual man to marry another man and woman at the same time. Or 2 bisexual women and 2 bisexual men to all marry each other at the same time. Such marriages would not harm you, why would you not support such marriages after supporting two gay people becoming married?

[actsnoblemartin]

in california they cant


Any gay is already allowed to marry any person of their choosing. You are inferring they can't.

The debate over "gay marriage" isn't about allowing or tolerating gay marriage, because it already is allowed and tolerated. If it wasn't tolerated there would be laws on the books outlawing the religious ceremony known as marriage between people of the same sex. There are no such laws. Nobody has ever been thrown in jail for getting married to someone of the same sex.

Its about forcing the rest of society to recognize their "marriage" through government.

Its ironic that the same block of people who so avidly believe in "separation of church and state" are pushing for government involvement in a religious ceremony. Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe it.

[MtnBiker]

I think we should draw the line at one person, and one person

Why? How can you extend rights to one minorty group and not another?

[PostmodernProphet]

until 1967 blacks and whites couldnt marry so marriage has already been redefined.



actually, nobody had any trouble figuring out what marriage was, they just didn't want mixed races....so marriage didn't need to be redefined....

[PostmodernProphet]

I think we should draw the line at one person, and one person

you're a nonpersonaphobe......or maybe a multipersonaphobe.....or maybe both.......I think we should draw the line at erasing lines......

[theHawk]

in california they cant

You are 100% wrong sir. Prop 22 which passed added this passage to the law code:


Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.


It does not "outlaw" or "ban" gay marriage at all, it simply states that the State of California will not recognize it for legal purposes.

Not recognizing and not allowing an event to happen are two entirely different things. It was reported widespread throughout the media as a "ban on gay marriage" when it was anything but.

[bullypulpit]

If the definition of marriage is not a marriage between one man and one woman, then what is the definition of marriage? Or what should it be?

Some say two men should be able to marry and that two women should be able to marry. Well why stop there. Why deny rights to polygamistis? Or a man or woman from marrying their adult child? There could even be people that want to marry their pets? Why deny their rights?

Given that the state has no vested interest in marriage beyond the contractual obligations it imposes on a couple, the gender of the individuals should be irrelevant. And so long as the relationship is between two consenting adults, again, the state would have no vested interest. For the state to define marriage as being between a "man and a woman" would be unwarranted interference in the private lives of its citizens and needlessly deprive a class of citizens of the same rights and privileges enjoyed by the rest of the citizenry.

[PostmodernProphet]

Given that the state has no vested interest in marriage beyond the contractual obligations it imposes on a couple, the gender of the individuals should be irrelevant. And so long as the relationship is between two consenting adults, again, the state would have no vested interest. For the state to define marriage as being between a "man and a woman" would be unwarranted interference in the private lives of its citizens and needlessly deprive a class of citizens of the same rights and privileges enjoyed by the rest of the citizenry.

common sense ought to be enough for most people......

[bullypulpit]

actually, nobody had any trouble figuring out what marriage was, they just didn't want mixed races....so marriage didn't need to be redefined....

Yet the arguments used in support of anti-miscegenation laws are no different from those used to deny same gender couples the right to marriage. The anti-miscegenation laws defined marriage defined marriage as being between a man and a woman of the same race. After their being declared unconstitutional, race was removed from the equation, thus marriage WAS redefined.

[MtnBiker]

Given that the state has no vested interest in marriage beyond the contractual obligations it imposes on a couple, the gender of the individuals should be irrelevant. And so long as the relationship is between two consenting adults, again, the state would have no vested interest. For the state to define marriage as being between a "man and a woman" would be unwarranted interference in the private lives of its citizens and needlessly deprive a class of citizens of the same rights and privileges enjoyed by the rest of the citizenry.

Would then support 3 women being married to each other at the same time? The state should have no vested interest in the marriage beyond the contractual obligations it imposes on the marriage.

[PostmodernProphet]

Yet the arguments used in support of anti-miscegenation laws are no different from those used to deny same gender couples the right to marriage.
recycling old bullshit.....same gender couples don't have a right to marriage, since marriage requires two genders.....



The anti-miscegenation laws defined marriage defined marriage as being between a man and a woman of the same race. After their being declared unconstitutional, race was removed from the equation, thus marriage WAS redefined.

no, it wasn't....marriage before and marriage after involved a man and a woman.....marriage between races was prohibited, but marriage still meant the same thing.....


these people just keep getting pushier and pushier.....I'm beginning to think it's time to take back some of the rights they were given before.....wouldn't be that hard....we just need to have society redefine some things.....like housing is something that heterosexuals live in....or work is something that heterosexuals do......you can run into all kinds of problems when you start pressing society to redefine things.....

[bullypulpit]

Would then support 3 women being married to each other at the same time? The state should have no vested interest in the marriage beyond the contractual obligations it imposes on the marriage.

As long as the relationship is consensual, it's not really an issue.

[MtnBiker]

As long as the relationship is consensual, it's not really an issue.

Ok, when a man marries his adult daughter with full consent that is not really an issue?

Or a man that marries 5 women with full consent that is also not really an issue?

[Insein]

Ok, when a man marries his adult daughter with full consent that is not really an issue?

Or a man that marries 5 women with full consent that is also not really an issue?

My ultimate solution is to not have the state give benefits to "married" people or recognize unions as a whole. Separation of church and state. Religion is where you are married. If there is a religion that will marry people that fit those categories, more power to them.

[bullypulpit]

Ok, when a man marries his adult daughter with full consent that is not really an issue?

Or a man that marries 5 women with full consent that is also not really an issue?

The law already makes a distinction with regards to consanguinity. And, as anyone versed in animal husbandry, or human nature, can tell you, inbreeding doth tell. ;)

As for polygamy or polyandry, again if it is between consenting adults...unlike some of the really freaky Mormon sects...and the parties are all satisfied with the arrangement it's their call

[MtnBiker]

Minority groups are seeking to change the law. Laws could be changed to unclude adult sibilings marrying each other. Would you deny their rights?

[PostmodernProphet]

And, as anyone versed in animal husbandry, or human nature, can tell you, inbreeding doth tell. ;)

definitely not a problem for gays....

[bullypulpit]

Minority groups are seeking to change the law. Laws could be changed to unclude adult sibilings marrying each other. Would you deny their rights?

Who is denying their rights? It's not within my power, or that of any other individual, to do so. The laws on consanguinity vary from state to state, but all ban sexual relations between siblings and parents and their children, whethter minor or adult.

[bullypulpit]

definitely not a problem for gays....

So why the kerfuffle over letting same gender couples marry?

[PostmodernProphet]

So why the kerfuffle over letting same gender couples marry?

I have no kerfuffle over two guys screwing each other.....I just don't like them saying society has to recognize it as something as normal as marriage.....