05-08-2004 18:03									#91
	Suffering from ads?

quote: No rules other than age of consent and even then there can be exceptions, i.e., a minor with parent's permission. Don't matter to me who or how many you marry, it's called freedom of association. If you find 3 women who want to marry you and the feeling is mutual, good for you and them... It's your life, you decide for yourself...

I'd also suggest not having the state recognize marriage. Have it be a totally private affair.

	05-08-2004 18:05									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

That'd end up being a pain in the arse because of all the legal consequences that would flow from it.

	05-08-2004 18:08									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: No rules other than age of consent and even then there can be exceptions, i.e., a minor with parent's permission. Don't matter to me who or how many you marry, it's called freedom of association. If you find 3 women who want to marry you and the feeling is mutual, good for you and them... It's your life, you decide for yourself... I'd also suggest not having the state recognize marriage. Have it be a totally private affair.

I'd agree in principle, but given the current social structure of the West, we pragmatically speaking need some sort of legally recognized framework for cohabiting couples.

I'd be all for it to be called "civil union" or similar, and leave the word "marriage" to whatever religious ceremonies people feel like having.

	05-08-2004 18:09									#94
	Support Apolyton

quote: I'd be all for it to be called "civil union" or similar, and leave the word "marriage" to whatever religious ceremonies people feel like having.

I guess that could work, but I reckon I'm just opposed to the government recognizing these pairings.

	05-08-2004 19:39									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

"Why is this complicated for you? Why can't marriage have the same rules as now, except that you allow gays to marry each other? Is it really that hard to grasp?"

Why are you being bigotted to willing polygamists?

	05-08-2004 19:43									#96
	Got spare money?

Who says he is?

	05-08-2004 19:43									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue "Why is this complicated for you? Why can't marriage have the same rules as now, except that you allow gays to marry each other? Is it really that hard to grasp?" Why are you being bigotted to willing polygamists?

I dunno, that's your hang up. I could care less about polygamists. If we want to extent marriage rights to them too, so be it. But I don't see why allowing gays to get married necessarily means wholesale change on everything else.

Why do you keep avoiding the point? I mean, I know the real answer, I just want to hear you say it.

	05-08-2004 19:46									#98
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Huh?

My definition is simple: marriage is between a man and a woman.

Your definition is something like: marriage is between a man and a woman, and between gays, and anyone else who fancies joining in the whole parade!

You need to make something exclusive to give it value.

	05-08-2004 19:48									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Well, my definition is "marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race".

Oh wait, you'd support that one.

How about "Marriage is between two men or two women"?

	05-08-2004 19:49									#100
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist I'd be all for it to be called "civil union" or similar, and leave the word "marriage" to whatever religious ceremonies people feel like having.

that is exactly what is being proposed for gay couples in britain. i think it's a good idea, a 'civil partnership', it's not gay marriage, but it is gay 'marriage' in all but name.

	05-08-2004 19:55									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue Huh? My definition is simple: marriage is between a man and a woman. Your definition is something like: marriage is between a man and a woman, and between gays, and anyone else who fancies joining in the whole parade! You need to make something exclusive to give it value.

So you fully admit to being bigotted?

And you're completely destroying one of your own points with your "exclusivity" statement. If you don't think that gays are being prevented from getting married now because they can marry someone of the opposite sex, then how is marriage exclusive at all? Anyone can do it now, they just have to do it in a manner that you approve of. If everyone did that, where's the exclusivity?

	05-08-2004 19:57									#102
	Got spare money?

Yes, gays can marry. Marriage doesn't discriminate against them.

	05-08-2004 20:05									#103
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue Yes, gays can marry. Marriage doesn't discriminate against them.

So how is marriage any more exclusive now than if gays were allowed to marry each other?

	05-08-2004 20:08									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue Yes, gays can marry. Marriage doesn't discriminate against them.

I already disposed of this point earlier in THIS THREAD ALONE!

If only gay marriage were allowed, then straights wouldn't be discriminated against - hey, you could always marry another guy.

	05-08-2004 20:10									#105
	Full PM-box? Change here!

But that isn't marriage.

	05-08-2004 20:12									#106
	Got spare money?

...

So your argument boils down to "marriage should be this way, because I say it is".

	05-08-2004 20:14									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Way to completely avoid my points, PA. You're a hero.

	05-08-2004 20:17									#108
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker ... So your argument boils down to "marriage should be this way, because I say it is".

Go and read my posts again.

	05-08-2004 20:19									#109
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker ... So your argument boils down to "marriage should be this way, because I say it is".

not that i am siding with PA, but what he seems to be saying is this is the way marriage is, because that's the way it's always been.

	05-08-2004 20:47									#110
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Hmm. Why not, this seems like a fun stupid argument to get into. For starters, what do you think the purpose of marriage is, PA and opponents? Seems like the best place to begin is to decide what it's all for and why it should or shouldn't be exclusive to specific combinations of genitalia...

	05-08-2004 20:52									#111
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by C0ckney not that i am siding with PA, but what he seems to be saying is this is the way marriage is, because that's the way it's always been.

But it hasn't always been that way, as various cultures have had same-sex marriages. There are even records of such marriages being performed in the Middle Ages under the auspices of Catholicism.

But until recently, marriage was "always" about a legal contract, not love or mutual commitment. It was "always" about an unequal power arrangement where the man dominated the woman. It was "always" prohibitive of interracial couplings. It was "always" prohibitive of cross-class couplings. It was "always" this that and the other. But those things changed, but it was still marriage.

	05-08-2004 21:13									#112
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue *snip* You need to make something exclusive to give it value.

That's where the love part comes, that's what's sets it apart...


-
Excuse me, though I mean what i say, I'm going to have to puke now....

	05-08-2004 21:34									#113
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: But it hasn't always been that way, as various cultures have had same-sex marriages. There are even records of such marriages being performed in the Middle Ages under the auspices of Catholicism.

I've got a really bad feeling about this one...

	05-08-2004 21:42									#114
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

How does two men or two women marrying each other diminish the value of the institution of marriage?


And I have to disagree with Imran in withdrawing government involvement from marriage. The privleges that go with marriage are invaluable.

	05-08-2004 23:28									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Now you homophiles need to state what rules you would have governing who can and who can't get married. Is it for only two people? Or as many as you want, etc?

Homophiles?

Marriage, to me, is a contract binding two people together for their own ends not societies. It may be love, procreation, money, sex, a clean house or free sex etc! That is for the participants sake. Being the economist, sociologist, historian, "man of the people" and thoroughbred intellectual you make yourself out to be, you should be familiar with such notions of contractualism. You will also be aware that historical definitions of a given contract, for example marriage, tend to change. The law in general is a perfect example of that. Marriage as a definition of a type of contract is fluctuant and malluable since primarily it concerns the people engaged within. It thus boils down to the only rules as such being that the people who engage in that contract (marriage) are of sound mind and free will.

quote: Why are you being bigotted to willing polygamists?

No-one said he was.

quote: You need to make something exclusive to give it value.

Ah! The value is defined by those who wish to engage in it (their own demand). To make it exclusive... well let's see... a legal recognition of a given relationship? The relationship itself is the exclusivity!

quote: not that i am siding with PA, but what he seems to be saying is this is the way marriage is, because that's the way it's always been.

It's always been that way because there was never a demand for it to be any other way. It is not some holy institution or some sacred function of inviolable Western civilisation, it is a contract, it is a functional, wonderful agreement.

	06-08-2004 00:33									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

What is marriage any way? The key to the argument is why we are arguing it.

Is it just for the name? If the definition of marriage is "a legal union between a man and a woman", then too bad two people of the same sex cannot have it by definition. Just like a table cannot be called a bed even if you can sleep on it sometimes. And there's nothing unfair about it. We can simply give it a name for "the legal union between two men" or "the legal union between two women", like we name tables table and beds bed.

But the real issue here is not the name. It is the benefit that is associated with the name, eg. tax deductions, etc. Should two people of the same sex who have mutual feelings toward each other have the same benefit as a married couple? That is the real issue.

	06-08-2004 00:40									#117
	Increase Your PM Length

Snowflake:

The issue with the definition is that it has a certain air of legitimacy about it. It may sound vain but it is important to some, which fine fair enough. It would be fine if it were on the same lines as claiming I am blonde when I am dark, but in my opinion the very definition of marriage is flexible. A "marriage" between two objects, ideas, sounds etc is not a man and a woman, nor need there be masculine or feminine attributes to them.

	06-08-2004 00:46									#118
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

In my view, marriage is a form that a society warrants for the sake of the continuity of the human race. Marriage is not essential for the continuity of the human race, but it is a basic unit for the society. A family forms the basis of economic activities, and thus serves to stablize the society. It reflects a society's economical, spiritual and moral standard. There was once it was legal for a man to have multiple wifes. Of couse we could redefine marriage so that it allows same sex unions, as long as it will not disrupt the normal order of the society. But then we could also redefine it so that more than two people could marry each other. Where should we draw the line?

I believe there is a husband and a wife in a marriage. I'm not sure if there is such things in a gay union. Or do we need to redefine that also? What if a child is involved? Do we need to redefine what mother and father means? If we have to redefine everything, why couldn't we simply use another name and recognize that it is just not the same thing?

	06-08-2004 00:46									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by C0ckney not that i am siding with PA, but what he seems to be saying is this is the way marriage is, because that's the way it's always been.

Little better.

	06-08-2004 00:55									#120
	Increase Your PM Length

It's frightening to argue on the basis because that's the way things have always been.

Slavery has been prevalent in human history for longer period of time than it has been abolished in most parts of the word now today. Should we have never abolished slavery because that was the way it always has been?