[evollove]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

we all carry the ideas of those that taught us, and until challenged and thought about honestly and fully, we never get rid of them.

Hm. Anyone here pick up a copy of American Conservative lately (some very thoughtful pieces, usually)? Anyone watch old episodes of William F Buckley's Firing Line (some strong, challenging ideas on the best episodes)? No? No? Hm.

[Bytor Peltor]

Does marriage have a definition and if so, does it exclude individuals desiring to practice polygamy?

Is it fair to assume many gays are now stressed out because they have lost a legitimate reason to not marry their significant other?

[gmku]

Well, it's weird, because many states allow common-law marriages, my own state included. My wife and I claimed ourselves as married even though we never went through an official ceremony. You do this by any number of simple things, e.g., filing joint tax returns, or, believe it or not, simply by agreeing to say that you are married. Sometimes a bank or HR dept will ask for a signed affadavit, but that's the only hassle.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Does marriage have a definition and if so, does it exclude individuals desiring to practice polygamy?

it depends if you're talking about religious marriage, civil marriage, or what the members of a marriage union define as their endeavor.

religious - depends on the religion. there are many religions and some allow and even encourage polygamy

civil - defined by law, varies from country to country

personal - billions of people on this earth, i'm sure the diversity is enormous

so there isn't "a" definition, there are many.

the definitions of civil marriage have to evolve with society and custom, otherwise the law is dead. in democratic societies, in particular, the laws are created from the bottom up, not from the top down (in theory at least), so what is lawful is always a moving definition-- this is why we no longer have slavery, prohibition, etc. same thing happening with marijuana legalization-- the push from the grassroots is becoming legislation. for a democratic society to operate that way, you realize, a lot of people have to be outside the law a lot of time, otherwise no change would be possible. and we adopt new social norms as we go.

[rebeccagotcursedout]

I live in the conservative south so I hear about this everyday. for the first time in my life, this year, have I've ever realize how religious and conservative/racist people are where im from and it's getting worse. backwoods rednecks watch news too. ouch!!!

I say YAY!!! and big deal. shouldn't I be hearing from the same people about how fucked the enivornment is or how shitty our school systems are besides gay marriage? no!! it's always about mindless gay this and jesus that and this.

I have the money to move. im gonna do it soon. maybe Atlanta or Athens. my life and the people in it are getting too andy griffith show. to the point where a persons last name is his profession. like "hey, do you know eddie the painter, or floyd the barber, or jeff the tile man"?

sorry, im tired because I had to sand and paint over 2,000 square feet today, but dammit!!! conservatism is raging full on here more than ever. it's getting worse and making me physically sick.

[rebeccagotcursedout]

Originally Posted by evollove

Hm. Anyone here pick up a copy of American Conservative lately (some very thoughtful pieces, usually)? Anyone watch old episodes of William F Buckley's Firing Line (some strong, challenging ideas on the best episodes)? No? No? Hm.

my grandfathers' girlfriend talks just like William Buckley. it's kinda cool. has the accent and everything. she's old. like young folks from the sixties wanting to talk british. that's how I take it. didn't notice it until I watched some old Firing Line episodes.

[gmku]

Yeah, in a way, in spite of his politics, Buckely was cool. I strive for his easygoing manner of speaking, actually. There is something valuable in that manner, to slow down and deliberate, to think before you speak.

[rebeccagotcursedout]

yeah, you don't really have conservatives like him anymore. curious and willing to listen to the other side. now it's Fox News assholes name calling pinheads, football loving brutes and some rich shit beauty pageant princess.

[gmku]

Exactly. He was at least articulate and acted like he wanted to consider the other side's views. If you haven't already, check out his spot on Woody Allen's tv show. They are both hillarious.

[Bytor Peltor]

Wow - you waved your Sonic Wand and compartmentalzed everything so nice and neat. You listed religion first, so let's start there.

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

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

religious - depends on the religion. there are many religions and some allow and even encourage polygamy

civil - defined by law, varies from country to country

personal - billions of people on this earth, i'm sure the diversity is enormous

so there isn't "a" definition, there are many.

[gmku]

It is often thought a sacred bond.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Wow - you waved your Sonic Wand and compartmentalzed everything so nice and neat. You listed religion first, so let's start there.

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

well, before the rise of the contemporary era, religion was claimed as the source of the law.cfrom the self-appointments of chosen people to the divine right of kings, social standards and morals were understood as god-given rather than the institutionalized product of economic conditions.

what economic conditions? the need for the organization of work (division of labor), for reproduction and the security of the offspring, for the accumulation and distribution of wealth and political power (inheritances, dinasties). Etc.

the thing is -- the family has always been the basic economic unit, adapted to the needs of society in its environment. religion, in its socially regulatory function, simply enshrined that institution.

later (it was a huge dispute in the XVIII and XIX century), civil society took on that regulatory role. civil wars were fought over the establishment of civil marriage. okay, i exaggerate a bit, but yes, church vs. secular was a huge social battle in the aftermath of the french revolution. in some middle eastern countries (including israel) there is no civil marriage.

the thing is, those social-economic needs change with history. what we think of "the family" today has very little to do with the family of the past. we don't live in large extended families because we no longer live in family farms.labor makets promote migration. the nuclear family is an industrial product--literally. but even the nuclear family, where the father goes to the factory and the mother stays at home looking after the children, is now potentially obsolete.

reproduction no longer requires the two-backed beast-- artificial insemination, sperm/egg donors, and surrogate mothers have changed our understanding of reproduction. beyond that, globalization has made adoption from poor to rich countries a huge possibility-- rich people no longer have to fuck, only the poor do.

work-- technology and economics keep changing the landscape. we no longer have child labor so children are no longer the way to rule the land but an economic burden. used to be children were born "with a loaf of bread under their arm" (translating from spanish here), nowadays people say "children are expensive," so instead of having 10 or 12 kids couples have one or two. and women in america joined the work force in huge numbers in the 70s not just because of "equality" but because of eroding wages made it hard for males to be the sole providers. still, depending on your circumstances today, one can have many more options--you can have a traditional family with grandparents and uncles and cousins in one big house or maybe a family compound, you can have the industrial nuclear family, you can have two incomes with kids, two incomes with no kids, you can be a stay at home mom who telecommutes, you can be a housedad, you can homestead in the boonies and have nine children. you can have two dads with kids, two women with dogs but no kids, you can take turns going to school and providing for each other---there is no one-way for the family to organize the work anymore. so the definition of the family changes.

as for the divine right of kings--irrelevant. nobilities-- only good for hola magazine. yes, the bushes and the clintons are modern political dinasties (or trying to become) but they don't just get proclaimed by virtue of their birth-- they still have to work for it. and inheritances only default to family in the absence of a will (not in all countries-- but still).

so, the family keeps evolving as we evolve. the law evolves and religions evolve. some religions however continue to lock up their women, and deny them schooling, and stone to death the adulterous ones, for example--they're sticking to their old time religion and consider your life scandalous and immoral.

[Mortte Jousimo]

The first step of the new law of marriage is taken also in Finland last year. But now there is gayfobiac party in the power, so it is really possible Finland will not become to the 21st century.

[Bytor Peltor]

Originally Posted by gmku

It is often thought a sacred bond.

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?

[Keeping It Gimple]

we need to focus on maKing humanity solely lesbian

[!@#$%!]

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?

authority? don't know why you mean by that. authority is a social construct. or do you mean there is some "essential" authority somewhere?

re: economic conditions: yes there is a strong emotional/affective component, we're social animals, we bond to our group, but that bond is essential to our survival, they are not separated, they have evolved together. we are what we are. but as needs change, those groups change. just look at human history, at human anthropology, and it is evident how groups organize themselves around their survival-- the hunters, the farmers, the warriors, the proletarians, the upper classes, etc. rules and morals and social organization change to adapt to the means of production.

and same sex pair bonding is nothing new by the way. many cultures have had them for a very long time. monotheistic monomania has eradicated a lot of human diversity in recent times, but fortunately we are now receding from the obsessiveness to oppress and subjugate others to our own insanity.

Originally Posted by Keeping It Gimple

we need to focus on maKing humanity solely lesbian

i have a story where the legalization of gay marriage would have protected a lesbian friend of mine but too long to tell this morning. i'll tell later if people are curious.

[Bytor Peltor]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

authority? don't know why you mean by that. authority is a social construct. or do you mean there is some "essential" authority somewhere?

I'm not sure what you mean by, "essential?"

I asked about common denominators between religions and gmku mentioned a sacred bond, which I believe to be the standard belief held by all cultures across the generations.

Again, what (maybe that should be, who) has the authority to make something sacred?

Going back to whatever each individual believes to be the start of everything, I believe every cultures belief / practice / understanding......marriage is a procreative institution. Taking it a step further, marriage is constructed and is the linchpin in all family and bloodline systems.

The core reason for marriage in every known society......to ensure that male / female unions will be there as a cooperative unit to raise the children. The purpose of a male / female union......the ability to create life is what makes the union sacred!

Are you aware of scholars from any era saying that marriage is anything less?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

I'm not sure what you mean by, "essential?"

I asked about common denominators between religions and gmku mentioned a sacred bond, which I believe to be the standard belief held by all cultures across the generations.

Again, what (maybe that should be, who) has the authority to make something sacred?

Going back to whatever each individual believes to be the start of everything, I believe every cultures belief / practice / understanding......marriage is a procreative institution. Taking it a step further, marriage is constructed and is the linchpin in all family and bloodline systems.

The core reason for mirage in every known society......to ensure that male / female unions will be there as a cooperative unit to raise the children. The ability of a male / female union......the ability to create life is what makes the union sacred!

Are you aware of scholars from any era saying that marriage is anything less?

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

these days gay couples adopt more people than most-- it's a service to humanity & a labor of love

case closed amigo

it's 2015

also an egg/sperm + donor

vive la liberté / égalité / fraternité

[Bytor Peltor]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Does marriage have a definition and if so, does it exclude individuals desiring to practice polygamy?

If you remember, all I did was ask a question. As of today, no one has answered it.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

If you remember, all I did was ask a question. As of today, no one has answered it.

i answered you!

mormon religion had polygamy but civil society didn't

both clashed

who was right? who was wrong?

think on it

look @ polygamy/polyandry through time & space

gtg