[Bytor Peltor]

So the definition of marriage is?

Can the definition be changed again?

Maybe to include polygamist or adults desiring to marry those underage?

Like you said......who is right / who is wrong?

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i answered you!



look @ polygamy/polyandry through time & space

gtg

He's trying to say that gays fuck a lot, and it's wrong unless they make kids. In a sensible way. He's fat and a goth.

[Bytor Peltor]

I was touched by the story gmku shared about the experience with his father. It prompted me to ask a question and I thought it would lead to some intriguing discussions. I don't see where I said or did anything to promote hate or loathing of gays......yet !@#$%! and Genteel act as if I did.

We all know the legacy Genteel has here......but I expected more from:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

so if 2 sterile people marry it's not a marriage? or if a marriage loses their children they're automatically divorced?

[Keeping It Gimple]

breeding and existence are def wrong tho

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Are there any common denominators between the religions as to why religion plays a roll in marriage?

social control. The only reason organized religions exist is to control the population with threats and rewards from carefully crafted deities.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Sacred means revered due to sanctity......the state of being holy or blessed.

I'm curious, what has the ability or the authority to make something sacred?

Surey the need / reason for family is something more than the economic conditions or the evolving family mentioned above?

as far as my father used to tell me (He was an Episcopal priest), if two people vow to each other to be each other's spouse, they are married in the eyes of "god" whether or not they are legally married in a civil sense. It does not, NOT, include the presence of a priest. That is just ceremony. He always told me people get married when they decide to give themselves to the other permanently, and that ussually happens WAY before the actual wedding ceremony.

civil marriage is an older institution than religious marriage, for marriage was and still is tied to the passage of inheritance, money, estates, and titles.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

I was touched by the story gmku shared about the experience with his father. It prompted me to ask a question and I thought it would lead to some intriguing discussions. I don't see where I said or did anything to promote hate or loathing of gays......yet !@#$%! and Genteel act as if I did.

We all know the legacy Genteel has here......but I expected more from:

whoa, man, i don't understand this reaction. i certainly do not side with gd's insults although i do understand his frustration.

i did reply to you as honestly as i could-- there is no central definition of marriage. it has something to do with keeping house throughout history but as i've outlined there is religion, there is civil society, and there is the personal aspect, and those three have always been contesting what is "marriage"

the thing with gmku's dad, not sure if you've read him talk about it elsewhere, is that he wasn't sad when the old man died. he sees him as an example of what-not-to-do.

as for your disappointment with my answers, seems to me like you've been asking loaded questions though, like you want an answer a certain way. i cannot agree with the premise that there is "one" "authority" for "marriage". maybe your questions are not loaded on purpose, if that's the case then i don't understand what you're asking.

as for the final legalization of gay marriage last week it has exclusively to do with the law, with legal rights and duties. it does not regulate religion and it does not legislate intimacy. those are separate spheres. it's a civil rights issue, and it has nothing to do with zeus or zalmoxis or any other gods that one may choose to follow.

as for polygamy-- it will probably happen at some point and i don't see why i can't provided it's voluntary and non-coercive. it's not for me, but such families already exists, even though they're not legally recognized in this country.

marrying minors-- given that minors are not legally capable of consent, i don't think it's even a comparable question. sounds like trollbait.

Originally Posted by Keeping It Gimple

breeding and existence are def wrong tho

gnostics hi

[Bytor Peltor]

I've held this same belief and the wife and I have discussed it several times over the years!

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

as far as my father used to tell me (He was an Episcopal priest), if two people vow to each other to be each other's spouse, they are married in the eyes of "god" whether or not they are legally married in a civil sense. It does not, NOT, include the presence of a priest. That is just ceremony. He always told me people get married when they decide to give themselves to the other permanently, and that ussually happens WAY before the actual wedding ceremony.

civil marriage is an older institution than religious marriage, for marriage was and still is tied to the passage of inheritance, money, estates, and titles.

[Keeping It Gimple]

yall should read preciado. homosexuality was invented as a biopolitical category to define those who were infertile under the heterocapitalist order. but now homosexuality is no longer a barrier to reproduction - and we all have different subjective regimes running through us - hetero, homo, capitalist.

what has happened is good, but never forget that its just a lifting of a prohibition that was fundamentally unjust and wrong from the beginning, and so this is a case of someone stopping punching you, which is good but they never should have been hitting you in the first place

of course, the christo-facist shithole that im from still has not legalized it and elects people who were trying to make it illegal and who demand queers submit to their christo-fascism, which would involve donating to their church and still being exiled, spat on, hated and threatened into silence and submission.

and what is verbotten in our society is non phallic eroticism so the homosexuality we have promoted today is often pretty bad and not necessarily in itself liberatory. its important i feel to stress this because we do live under predation, abuse for pay, rising std rates etc. just because the state says you can marry does not make these things go away, and just because you can go to the gayhetto and get drunk and take drugs does not mean you aren't exploited by the economy, nevermind the pharmacopornographic regime.

[Drjohnrock]

Originally Posted by gmku

I am, of course, all for the right to gay marriage, but I remember some comedian joking a while back: "Marriage? Why do gay people want to make the same mistake we've made?" Or something like that.

When Kinky Friedman ran for governor of Texas, he said that he was for gay marriage because (and I paraphrase) "they have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us". It's funny but cautionary: be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. And for straights as well as gays, it's always wise to use your head and not just your heart when considering marriage. It's not for everybody. John Waters said a few years back that he was for gays opening serving in the military and having the right to marry, although he never would want to do either himself. Although he obviously was too old to enlist in the military...

[Drjohnrock]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

So the definition of marriage is?

Can the definition be changed again?

Maybe to include polygamist or adults desiring to marry those underage?

Like you said......who is right / who is wrong?

Polygamists will use the SCOTUS decision to argue in court for their legal right to marry. Aren't you also denying those who believe in plural marriage their rights to due process and equal protection under the law? Why should marriage be confined to two people? Whether those arguments succeed is an entirely different matter.

As for marrying those underage, such proponents have a much tougher argument, although they'll likely point to differences in state laws as to marital age as showing how "arbitrary" laws are prohibiting marriage to minors. But I would say their chances aren't very good.

[LifeDistortion]

The argument that if you approve gay marriage then you must approve all marriage is ridiculous, no you can't marry an animal, no you can't marry your daughter or sister, no you can't marry anyone under 18 (not sure if this is nation-wide to be honest). It has to do with consent, an animal can't give consent, and in most incest pairings usually someone is being forced or victimized, so again no consent. Some people want to equate homosexuality to be in the same line of immortality as incest or animal sex. It's a bogus argument.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by gmku

I am, of course, all for the right to gay marriage, but I remember some comedian joking a while back: "Marriage? Why do gay people want to make the same mistake we've made?" Or something like that.

Yes another funny one i heard was "Mandatory Gay Marriage: that's right every gay person has to get married, how do y'all like THAT."

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by LifeDistortion

The argument that if you approve gay marriage then you must approve all marriage is ridiculous, no you can't marry an animal, no you can't marry your daughter or sister, no you can't marry anyone under 18 (not sure if this is nation-wide to be honest). It has to do with consent, an animal can't give consent, and in most incest pairings usually someone is being forced or victimized, so again no consent. Some people want to equate homosexuality to be in the same line of immortality as incest or animal sex. It's a bogus argument.

The argument itself is not ridiculous but it is nefarious and meanspirited. Marriage in a secular society is a social contract. It entails some legal shit about assets and property, it also carries some social connotations like the expectations of behavior. It also plays into insurance benefits.
Socially it is also the creation of new families out of several different families. Not everyone in the family likes this but hey, that is precisely why folks get married because its not always about what some people in the family likes. So if society somehow wanted to negotiate bestiality, incest, or pedophilia that is legitimately on the table, however THIS society does not seem likely at all, considering we as a society already negotiated lawa punishing bestiality and pedophilia rightfully aa crimes.

Bytor also touched on religious and sacred. This is defined by the religious authorities. In the Orthodox Church our Fathers have said, "no dice." Interestingly it should be noted in Orthodox even heterosexual secular marriage is "sin" and couples are required to marry in the Church BEFORE filing their secular paperwork. In Orthodox marriage is a sacrament which is to say fundamentally interconnected with human salvation. Its not necessarily about procreation so much as a sanctified human relationship blessed by Grace. Further in the sacramental sense, marriage is a VOCATION similar to priesthood. This implies there is some deal of work involved.

Other religious authorities have been more flexible, i understand the Episcopalians have officially recognized gay marriages and officiate them.
Me? My personal vibe is marry who you love, but don't ask my priests to perform the service.

[Drjohnrock]

Originally Posted by LifeDistortion

The argument that if you approve gay marriage then you must approve all marriage is ridiculous, no you can't marry an animal, no you can't marry your daughter or sister, no you can't marry anyone under 18 (not sure if this is nation-wide to be honest). It has to do with consent, an animal can't give consent, and in most incest pairings usually someone is being forced or victimized, so again no consent. Some people want to equate homosexuality to be in the same line of immortality as incest or animal sex. It's a bogus argument.

I didn't say I agreed with polygamy or people marrying minors (and no, the laws on the latter aren't the same in all 50 states). I was pointing out that proponents of those positions can and will make such arguments. They have the right to make them. They aren't guaranteed the right to prevail. Anyone who thinks that such arguments will simply never be made are either naïve or have no idea how the legal system in this country works.

[rebeccagotcursedout]

marriage is phony anyway and has always been.

im guessing 80 percent of marriages these days are young people. the rest are older people that have found what they truly wanted.

so it's five reasons why humans do marry:

1. sex related.... getting a little booty before and after work connects you a little more with yr co-workers. marriage because of sex is the worse thing you can do.

2. marry too young because yr brain hasn't developed yet and yr young and think love last forever between yr spouse. everybody is romantic until they hit 30.

3. people thinking they have some internal clock caused by the media. getting laid before yr time runs out plays into this.

4. just to be one with society because you aren't as independent as you come across. aka, getting some booty everyday in the morning and afternoon makes you feel accepted with yr peers.

5. and many many many more.

marriage is for true love and I doubt most people marry because of that which is the safest way and that which is real.