Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III - Page 28 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-30-2013, 10:41 AM   #406
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post

But is it true for AEON and nbc (both of whom have suddenly returned after long absences? Might there be others, maybe lurkers. . .I don't know)? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But at the very least their tone is different.
Speaking for myself - I remained a lurker for quite some time between the long gaps of my posts.

The Supreme Court decision was a pivotal moment. I thought I would come back and test the waters - to see if a level of civility had returned (at least to a level that I feel is inviting and productive). So far - it seems it has, and that is a blessing.

Gay marriage was such a contentious issue here in this forum. Every time it makes the news, I always think of this forum and the people in it. Like you, my attitude changed quite a bit toward homosexuality. I still don't understand it - but I do know they are real human beings that live, laugh, and suffer like the rest of us and they are to be treated equally under the laws of men and the Law of Grace. However - unlike you, I have not come to conclusion that that sacrament of marriage includes homosexual partnerships.

Presently - I am more in favor of removing the government's role altogether in marriage.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 11:08 AM   #407
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 05:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post


So - that is what I would like to understand: what is your definition of marriage, what are the limits of that definition, and where do you derive that definition?

If you don't care to answer, I understand. Perhaps someone else can chime in.

Thanks.
I will give it a go as I find the question to be interesting and I'd like to hear people's opinions on it.

My definition is very similar to how marriage is currently defined under Canadian law (note that we do not have a definition of marriage in legislation; it is derived from the common law but legislation defines a spouse). Not because it is the law but because it makes intrinsic sense to me.

Marriage is a voluntary conjugal union between two persons to the exclusion of all others. Let's unpack that a bit.

Voluntary? To me it means that both people must enter into the union of their own free will and not under duress. They therefore need to Have the capacity to freely consent. Which would mean that stories of 9 year old girls in Afghanistan being forced to marry 60-year-old men would not qualify as marriages in a free and democratic society. It also to me has implications for polygamous marriage because I don't believe in absolute a priori consent. Meaning, that the first wife, at the time of her marriage can only consent to the marriage at hand. She cannot consent to be part of a union in the future which would introduce multiple other women whom she does not know. It is also questionable whether consent can be given freely by individuals who are by then bound to the union by finances, children, etc and for whom staying in the confines of a polygamous marriage has become a necessity. There are issues of duress there.

Conjugal? Here I do draw on tradition a bit because while marriage has not always been one man and one woman, the conjugal aspect was there. I support that remaining to be the case because I think there is a qualitative difference in a conjugal relationship over a friendly one. We can debate separately whether domestic contracts should be extended to friends or roommates. The conjugal aspect is also what would preclude marriages between related persons (within reason, as 6th cousins twice removed do not pose genetic challenges). My opinion here is based on biology and genetics primarily and secondarily on issues of consent between two individuals, one of whom could be in a position of power or influence over the other (i.e. father/daughter, uncle/niece).

Two persons? Covers men and women. I see no rational, secular reason to deny marriage to same sex couples. There is no evidence that suggests that harm will result to the society and same sex couples would still have to be subject to the same rules respecting consent.

To the exclusion of all others? Discussed above
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 11:29 AM   #408
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post

I will give it a go as I find the question to be interesting and I'd like to hear people's opinions on it.

My definition is very similar to how marriage is currently defined under Canadian law (note that we do not have a definition of marriage in legislation; it is derived from the common law but legislation defines a spouse). Not because it is the law but because it makes intrinsic sense to me.

Marriage is a voluntary conjugal union between two persons to the exclusion of all others. Let's unpack that a bit.

Voluntary? To me it means that both people must enter into the union of their own free will and not under duress. They therefore need to Have the capacity to freely consent. Which would mean that stories of 9 year old girls in Afghanistan being forced to marry 60-year-old men would not qualify as marriages in a free and democratic society. It also to me has implications for polygamous marriage because I don't believe in absolute a priori consent. Meaning, that the first wife, at the time of her marriage can only consent to the marriage at hand. She cannot consent to be part of a union in the future which would introduce multiple other women whom she does not know. It is also questionable whether consent can be given freely by individuals who are by then bound to the union by finances, children, etc and for whom staying in the confines of a polygamous marriage has become a necessity. There are issues of duress there.

Conjugal? Here I do draw on tradition a bit because while marriage has not always been one man and one woman, the conjugal aspect was there. I support that remaining to be the case because I think there is a qualitative difference in a conjugal relationship over a friendly one. We can debate separately whether domestic contracts should be extended to friends or roommates. The conjugal aspect is also what would preclude marriages between related persons (within reason, as 6th cousins twice removed do not pose genetic challenges). My opinion here is based on biology and genetics primarily and secondarily on issues of consent between two individuals, one of whom could be in a position of power or influence over the other (i.e. father/daughter, uncle/niece).

Two persons? Covers men and women. I see no rational, secular reason to deny marriage to same sex couples. There is no evidence that suggests that harm will result to the society and same sex couples would still have to be subject to the same rules respecting consent.

To the exclusion of all others? Discussed above


This is about as good as I could ever come up with.

As for the sacrament of marriage, that's fine -- churches can refuse to marry whomever.

But under the law, your religious definition if marriage cannot be used to deny others the same rights you enjoy.




Polygamy is a thorny subject, but it's almost exclusively about heterosexuality. One distinction I would make is that, presently, in some states, a gay person cannot marry anyone. A heterosexual polygamist is free to marry someone everywhere.

If anything is a lifestyle choice, it's polygamy.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 12:20 PM   #409
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

If anything is a lifestyle choice, it's polygamy.

Well, some men can't help but to have more than one woman...
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 12:26 PM   #410
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:21 AM
typo
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I will give it a go as I find the question to be interesting and I'd like to hear people's opinions on it.

My definition is very similar to how marriage is currently defined under Canadian law (note that we do not have a definition of marriage in legislation; it is derived from the common law but legislation defines a spouse). Not because it is the law but because it makes intrinsic sense to me.

Marriage is a voluntary conjugal union between two persons to the exclusion of all others. Let's unpack that a bit.

Voluntary? To me it means that both people must enter into the union of their own free will and not under duress. They therefore need to Have the capacity to freely consent. Which would mean that stories of 9 year old girls in Afghanistan being forced to marry 60-year-old men would not qualify as marriages in a free and democratic society. It also to me has implications for polygamous marriage because I don't believe in absolute a priori consent. Meaning, that the first wife, at the time of her marriage can only consent to the marriage at hand. She cannot consent to be part of a union in the future which would introduce multiple other women whom she does not know. It is also questionable whether consent can be given freely by individuals who are by then bound to the union by finances, children, etc and for whom staying in the confines of a polygamous marriage has become a necessity. There are issues of duress there.

Conjugal? Here I do draw on tradition a bit because while marriage has not always been one man and one woman, the conjugal aspect was there. I support that remaining to be the case because I think there is a qualitative difference in a conjugal relationship over a friendly one. We can debate separately whether domestic contracts should be extended to friends or roommates. The conjugal aspect is also what would preclude marriages between related persons (within reason, as 6th cousins twice removed do not pose genetic challenges). My opinion here is based on biology and genetics primarily and secondarily on issues of consent between two individuals, one of whom could be in a position of power or influence over the other (i.e. father/daughter, uncle/niece).

Two persons? Covers men and women. I see no rational, secular reason to deny marriage to same sex couples. There is no evidence that suggests that harm will result to the society and same sex couples would still have to be subject to the same rules respecting consent.

To the exclusion of all others? Discussed above
That's a pretty good answer, Anitram - and it will probably be the legal foundation for marriage in the current era (as far as Western-style democratic governments are involved).

I think the idea of group marriages is truly a slippery slope (What's the limit? How many? An entire commune, state, country?).
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 12:34 PM   #411
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

As for the sacrament of marriage, that's fine -- churches can refuse to marry whomever.
Well, I tend to think of it not as refusing marriage as much as it is overseeing a sacred union between a man and a woman. But I do appreciate that you do not consider it government's role to interfere with the marital practices of the Church.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
But under the law, your religious definition if marriage cannot be used to deny others the same rights you enjoy.
That is true. We live in a democracy - and democracy has had it's say. I will render unto Caesar what is Caesar's - though I still answer to a Higher Authority.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 01:05 PM   #412
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Well, I tend to think of it not as refusing marriage as much as it is overseeing a sacred union between a man and a woman.
Then overseeing can include interracial marriage and interfaith marriage. Some churches don't see those as sacred, which is fine.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 01:06 PM   #413
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
In all honesty, the free market will probably end up hurting them over time.
Letting markets and individuals decide... a very dangerous concept in the year 2013 digitize.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 01:21 PM   #414
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post

Well, some men can't help but to have more than one woman...

This isnt how polygamy works at all. Not is this analogous to sexual orientation.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 01:22 PM   #415
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Letting markets and individuals decide... a very dangerous concept in the year 2013 digitize.

I'm really surprised you weren't on board with Windsor.

It was an old, rich, white lady trying to pay fewer taxes (which, according to you, thereby increases her freedom and liberty.)

What's not to love?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 01:24 PM   #416
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
This isnt how polygamy works at all. Not is this analogous to sexual orientation.
Sorry - I meant it more as a sarcastic jab at the Donald Drapers of the world.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 01:45 PM   #417
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 06:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
This isnt how polygamy works at all. Not is this analogous to sexual orientation.
Well, some men will say a man needs more than one woman, and use that to justify polygamy. So it does work like that.

Also, what about a bisexual woman married to a man - and both want to bring in another bisexual woman into their union and have a polygamous marriage? For the record, I am not saying all bisexuals are incapable of being monogamous. But guaranteed, there has to be at least a handful around who prefer polygamy/polyamory.
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 02:00 PM   #418
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I actually think that INDY was able to engage on non-SSM topics quite reasonably until the Obama era and then totally lost the plot out of an irrational hatred of the man. His SSM posts have also gotten far more charged since, but I think that's not playing a role, it's more just a side effect of the overall animus that he seems to feel towards the government of the day.

Just a guess.
Good guess. But know that the president equally despises me and all who share my economics, politics, the institutions I support, and much of this country's history and founding principles.
The difference being I have but one vote to cast against the man. He, on the other hand, is fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

Just as he promised he would.


Obama: We Are 5 Days From Fundamentally Transforming America - YouTube
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 02:06 PM   #419
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I'm really surprised you weren't on board with Windsor.

It was an old, rich, white lady trying to pay fewer taxes (which, according to you, thereby increases her freedom and liberty.)
One of the ironies of the case; if me and my ilk ran things there would be no inheritance tax. So yes, I wonder why she sought redress from marriage laws instead of high tax rates. But high taxes don't distress liberals do they?

Quote:
What's not to love?
That a tax dispute can result in the radical redefinition of marriage by 5 judges for a country of 300 million people.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 02:09 PM   #420
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 02:21 AM


I miss "special rights" as the conservative buzzword for gay rights. "Redefining" is just too narrow; it only addresses one aspect. "Special rights" included everything that they are afraid of.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com