Redefining marriage

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by Toxick

From TFA:
Contrary to popular belief, most women benefit from polygynous society, and most men benefit from monogamous society.


Does this come as a shock to anyone who's married?


I remember when I was single, I thought the concept of having 5-6 wives would be so freakin' awesome. It would be a random rotating sex-feast, where the women would have pillow fights with each other, dress up in lingerie to lounge around the house, dinner would ALWAYS be ready, and family trips to the beach would look like a Miss Universe pageant, and my wooter would be tingling at all times, night or day... it would be pure heaven.

Then I got married.


Married guys: Imagine having 2 of 'em.

Imagine 3.





One can only hope to have a heart attack after a few five-somes or six-somes and bail the hell out of that mess early.

Just to be clear, I do not nor can not see the benefit of Polygamy (more properly defined as Polygyny)

Hell womens "cycles" get into synch, imagine the fun during that week

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Are you sure you want to play that game?

We already know that Polygamy is not condemned

By your links, may I assume you want us to use religious views as the law of the land?

If not, what is the point in quoting the Bible? The bible says the word "devil" in it to, so that must be okay?

The discussion, try to stay on track, was the union between consenting adults.

I was responding to this:

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Other countries also allow polygamy and gay marriages, without adverse impact to the society

Some find that Polygamy is beneficial

Seems it's only beneficial to women, or TV shows by your links.

Based on a fluid definition that has changed by meaning and practice over the years.

Aspects, yes. Participants, no.

Just to clarify, because you go back and forth above, you are for civil unions but against marriage? Your problem is them using the word marriage?

Not back and forth at all. Very consistent.

No, I've got no problem with them using the word marriage. They should use whatever word suits them. They should buy houses, plan vacations, celebrate anniversaries, have whatever ceremonies they feel appropriate (without harm to others) to demonstrate their union. Any and all of these things they see fit they should do.

However, the government should not change the definition nor entry requirements of a centuries old, established union simply for 2% of the population (something like 75% of the 2% are not interested in monogomous relationships anyway, per studies). The process should be followed to establish an appropriate union recognized by the state, for whatever reason they feel the need to be recognized by the state. As it is a different union, it should come with it's own set of responsibilities and privileges. And, it should not require one type of sexual orientation, just like marriage does not require one type of sexual orientation.

I have stated all along i am for keeping the government out of the consentual union of law abiding citizens. Two adults want to get married, why is it your business? No harm to society, why is it the Governments?

Two people having a ceremony and living however they want, provided it does no harm to others, is not any of my business, your business, nor the government's business.

Two people filing for state recognition of their union becomes the government's business, and (as a tax paying, law abiding, voting citizen) I have a voice in that government.

I think your saying your for civil unions, but not the word marriage, is this correct? If so, are they both equal? in that they both confer equal protection, benefits and rights (as defined in the Defense of Marriage Act)?

They are as equal as a motorcycle license and a commercial license. They each have their own separate issues, with it coming their own separate benefits and rights.

I think your saying your for civil unions, but not the word marriage, is this correct? If so, are they both equal? in that they both confer equal protection, benefits and rights (as defined in the Defense of Marriage Act)?

They are as equal as a motorcycle license and a commercial license. They each have their own separate issues, with it coming their own separate benefits and rights.

[TurboK9]

Isn't marriage a religious institution? Whereas a civil union is a legal institution? Marriage being a form of civil union?

I find it ironic that the same people who cry about the Ten Commandments in a city hall, or a moment of prayer in school, or a crucifix in a courthouse... are crying about how marriage should be legal for same sex couples. Marriage is a religious institution!

I don't have a problem at all gays getting hitched.... makes no difference to me. I do have a problem with the government creating religious policy and religious law. If a church decides that it wants to grant a marriage to a gay couple, fine with me. And, some have. But, is it governments place to get involved, specifically here?

Civil unions are the governments bailywick, not marriage. Now, my problem here is that a gay couple can be recognized as having a civil union in some states just by being a couple for a short period and making a simple statement. Then, they get all the benefits that a married couple gets. But if you are a heterosexual, you MUST get married in the same states in order for your partner to share your benefits! Some employers will give bennies to same sex partners, but not to unmarried hetero partners... Where is the discrimination REALLY at?

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Toxick

From TFA:
Contrary to popular belief, most women benefit from polygynous society, and most men benefit from monogamous society.


Does this come as a shock to anyone who's married?


I remember when I was single, I thought the concept of having 5-6 wives would be so freakin' awesome. It would be a random rotating sex-feast, where the women would have pillow fights with each other, dress up in lingerie to lounge around the house, dinner would ALWAYS be ready, and family trips to the beach would look like a Miss Universe pageant, and my wooter would be tingling at all times, night or day... it would be pure heaven.

Then I got married.


Married guys: Imagine having 2 of 'em.

Imagine 3.





One can only hope to have a heart attack after a few five-somes or six-somes and bail the hell out of that mess early.

Back in the day there was a compelling reason for society to allow more than one wife.
When there were wars either nation against nation or religion or whatever, men would die in some fairly damaging numbers.
So, to build up the numbers of the individual societies, it was beneficial for a man to have more than one wife.
Not the case today.

[libertytyranny]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Ahh ok we understand now. Your against Gay Marriage, because all of these other groups, organizations, associations use the same arguments?

Nevermind these other groups, organizations and associations involve non-consenting parties, and Gay Marriage involves consenting adults. Just the fact that the arguments are the same, means Gay Marriage is bad?

Hmm so what are the arguments then? and how do they differ from the reasons Heteros get married? Based on your logic, if the reasons are the same for Gays and Heteros, and Gays and Manbla has the same reasons, then Hetero Marriage should also be banned.

You are almost there..but not quite. I don't really think one way or the other about gay people getting married..but allowing them..would inevitably allow the others...and thats what I dont like.

I think you are confusing "logic" as to why to allow marriage and "reasons why" people get married.
heteros dont have to defend why they get married or have a set of rules and logic to argue such. It would be silly to hear a hetero couple say that there have been many hetero instances historically, or that there are heteros in the wild, or argue that it is natural. Heterosexuals are the majority, the norm, and biologically correct.It is only the small minority who wishes things to change so they may satisfy their own desire.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

By your links, may I assume you want us to use religious views as the law of the land?

If not, what is the point in quoting the Bible? The bible says the word "devil" in it to, so that must be okay?

No, just examples of beneficial Polygamy in societies

Originally Posted by This_person

I was responding to this:

You do understand the term consent? Your examples were of women that did not consent to be in the relationships (hence their desire to not be in it).

Originally Posted by This_person

Seems it's only beneficial to women, or TV shows by your links.

I thought it wasnt beneficial (according to your links)

Originally Posted by This_person

Aspects, yes. Participants, no.

Doesnt matter, the fact is that the definition of marriage has changed throughout history. Basing Marriage on a fluid term is not an argument.

Originally Posted by This_person

Not back and forth at all. Very consistent.

No, I've got no problem with them using the word marriage. They should use whatever word suits them. They should buy houses, plan vacations, celebrate anniversaries, have whatever ceremonies they feel appropriate (without harm to others) to demonstrate their union. Any and all of these things they see fit they should do.

However, the government should not change the definition nor entry requirements of a centuries old, established union simply for 2% of the population (something like 75% of the 2% are not interested in monogomous relationships anyway, per studies). The process should be followed to establish an appropriate union recognized by the state, for whatever reason they feel the need to be recognized by the state. As it is a different union, it should come with it's own set of responsibilities and privileges. And, it should not require one type of sexual orientation, just like marriage does not require one type of sexual orientation.

Two people having a ceremony and living however they want, provided it does no harm to others, is not any of my business, your business, nor the government's business.

Two people filing for state recognition of their union becomes the government's business, and (as a tax paying, law abiding, voting citizen) I have a voice in that government.

I dont think they care what it is called, as long as they are treated equally.

Just like you, Homo's are law abiding, tax paying and voting Citizens. They want the same recognitions, preferences and benefits awarded to them for the same type of union (call it whatever you want).

And just like you, they also have a voice in the Government.

They do not forfeit their right just because you dont condone their sexual preference.

Not awarding them the same benefits, preferences and recognition for an equal union (called whatever) is asking them to forfeit solely based on sexual preference.

Originally Posted by This_person

They are as equal as a motorcycle license and a commercial license. They each have their own separate issues, with it coming their own separate benefits and rights.They are as equal as a motorcycle license and a commercial license. They each have their own separate issues, with it coming their own separate benefits and rights.

The problem is, they are not petitioning the Government to ban Heterosexual Marriage, because it is not available to them.

They are looking for equality. They want to expand marriage (whatever its called) so it is available to more people. If marriage is a benefit to society, which you incessently argue (but was never under discussion), then more marriages are more beeneficial.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

If marriage is a benefit to society, which you incessently argue (but was never under discussion), then more marriages are more beeneficial.

Marriage by current definition is a benefit to society in your argument.
More marriages would be more beneficial, however once redefined, then the actual value of that redefined portion of the marriage equation would have to be evaluated on its own merits. Just because one calls it marriage, does not mean it is. (as currently defined.)

Calling your poodle a horse is not going to make it possible to ride it to town.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by bcp

Marriage by current definition is a benefit to society in your argument.
More marriages would be more beneficial, however once redefined, then the actual value of that redefined portion of the marriage equation would have to be evaluated on its own merits. Just because one calls it marriage, does not mean it is. (as currently defined.)

That is why you have to show a harm to society in order to prevent the union/marriage/pick-a-ninny.

Prohibiting it, just because, isnt valid nor is it a valid argument to have the Government (that is also beholden to the Gays) prevent bestowing the same benefits and preferences.

Originally Posted by bcp

Calling your poodle a horse is not going to make it possible to ride it to town.

But not because the poodle is incable of being ridden, only due to its size (you cant ride all horses). Some larger dogs can be ridden, used to pull a cart and act as a beast of burden.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

No, just examples of beneficial Polygamy in societies

In what way were those beneficial?

You do understand the term consent? Your examples were of women that did not consent to be in the relationships (hence their desire to not be in it).

Fair enough. Where are the examples of the societies where it is consensual and beneficial to the society? Your links were a combination of beneficial and detrimental to individuals, and beneficial to a production studio.

I thought it wasnt beneficial (according to your links)

It's not, good point. At least, not to society in general, which was the claim

Doesnt matter, the fact is that the definition of marriage has changed throughout history. Basing Marriage on a fluid term is not an argument.

Not basing "marriage" on a fluid term. Basing the participants of who enters marriage on that consistent portion of the term.

I dont think they care what it is called, as long as they are treated equally.

I would agree.

And, if they were equal, they'd be entering marriage. Since there are differences (note, I am not suggesting either union is better, worse, etc., etc. I am only suggesting the obvious, indisputible fact that the unions are different), then different forms of responsibilities and privileges should go with that as well (note, I am not suggesting any "better" nor "worse" treatment to either union, merely what is deemed appropriate by the people of each state to what they define the "unions" to deserve).

Just like you, Homo's are law abiding, tax paying and voting Citizens. They want the same recognitions, preferences and benefits awarded to them for the same type of union (call it whatever you want).

I find "homos" to be a deragatory term, and would appreciate you not using it.

They have the same recognitions, preferences, and benefits awarded to them for the same types of unions. Nothing stops a homosexual woman nor homosexual man from marrying someone of the opposite gender, who is willing, of sufficient age, and not too closely related already. Should they choose to enter into that union, they receive the same government recognition/expectations/benefits as a heterosexual entering into marriage.

Similarly, should the state determine that a same-gendered union be recognized by the state, I would fully expect that heterosexuals be allowed to enter into those arrangements.

And just like you, they also have a voice in the Government.

No doubt

They do not forfeit their right just because you dont condone their sexual preference.

Again, you can ascribe a position to me, but that doesn't mean it's my position.

I do not care what their sexual preference(s) is/are. None of my business, provided they don't harm anyone else in the process. I strongly suspect that you do things I would find distasteful, as I would do things you might find distasteful. None of that is any of either of our business regarding the other, and I feel the same way towards anyone else's sexual preferences.

Not awarding them the same benefits, preferences and recognition for an equal union (called whatever) is asking them to forfeit solely based on sexual preference.

Again, they have the ability to enter into an equal union. Should they choose to enter into a different union, there would be different benefits/responsibilities as appropriate to that different union.

The problem is, they are not petitioning the Government to ban Heterosexual Marriage, because it is not available to them.

To the best of my knowledge, no one suggested they were for banning opposite gendered unions. Nor, coincidentally, am I suggesting banning same gendered unions - quite the opposite in fact. So, I'm not sure of your point. Perhaps you're still arguing against the points you want to argue against, instead of the ones I'm making? It seems easier for you to decide what I'm saying and then disagree with that via your pre-determined arguments instead of actually understand what I'm saying.

They are looking for equality. They want to expand marriage (whatever its called) so it is available to more people.

This is what I am against. There is no reason to "expand" (which would naturally, logically be a redefinition of) marriage. No reason whatsoever. Maintain the current definition, because there is nothing wrong with "marriage" as it is defined now. If there are those out there who wish to provide a state recognition of other forms of unions - such as same gendered unions - there is certainly a process to do that. I would be for them suggesting that. But, "expanding (the definition of) marriage" to include things not currently there is not the correct process, IMO.

If marriage is a benefit to society, which you incessently argue (but was never under discussion), then more marriages are more beneficial.

Provided those marriages are marriages, I would agree.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

In what way were those beneficial?Fair enough. Where are the examples of the societies where it is consensual and beneficial to the society? Your links were a combination of beneficial and detrimental to individuals, and beneficial to a production studio.It's not, good point. At least, not to society in general, which was the claimNot basing "marriage" on a fluid term. Basing the participants of who enters marriage on that consistent portion of the term.I would agree.

And, if they were equal, they'd be entering marriage. Since there are differences (note, I am not suggesting either union is better, worse, etc., etc. I am only suggesting the obvious, indisputible fact that the unions are different), then different forms of responsibilities and privileges should go with that as well (note, I am not suggesting any "better" nor "worse" treatment to either union, merely what is deemed appropriate by the people of each state to what they define the "unions" to deserve).I find "homos" to be a deragatory term, and would appreciate you not using it.

They have the same recognitions, preferences, and benefits awarded to them for the same types of unions. Nothing stops a homosexual woman nor homosexual man from marrying someone of the opposite gender, who is willing, of sufficient age, and not too closely related already. Should they choose to enter into that union, they receive the same government recognition/expectations/benefits as a heterosexual entering into marriage.

Similarly, should the state determine that a same-gendered union be recognized by the state, I would fully expect that heterosexuals be allowed to enter into those arrangements.No doubtAgain, you can ascribe a position to me, but that doesn't mean it's my position.

I do not care what their sexual preference(s) is/are. None of my business, provided they don't harm anyone else in the process. I strongly suspect that you do things I would find distasteful, as I would do things you might find distasteful. None of that is any of either of our business regarding the other, and I feel the same way towards anyone else's sexual preferences.Again, they have the ability to enter into an equal union. Should they choose to enter into a different union, there would be different benefits/responsibilities as appropriate to that different union.To the best of my knowledge, no one suggested they were for banning opposite gendered unions. Nor, coincidentally, am I suggesting banning same gendered unions - quite the opposite in fact. So, I'm not sure of your point. Perhaps you're still arguing against the points you want to argue against, instead of the ones I'm making? It seems easier for you to decide what I'm saying and then disagree with that via your pre-determined arguments instead of actually understand what I'm saying.This is what I am against. There is no reason to "expand" (which would naturally, logically be a redefinition of) marriage. No reason whatsoever. Maintain the current definition, because there is nothing wrong with "marriage" as it is defined now. If there are those out there who wish to provide a state recognition of other forms of unions - such as same gendered unions - there is certainly a process to do that. I would be for them suggesting that. But, "expanding (the definition of) marriage" to include things not currently there is not the correct process, IMO.Provided those marriages are marriages, I would agree.

So you dont want Homo's (its not derogatory, its lazy i dont feel like spelling out Homosexual) to use the term Marriage, because the definition, that it is currently defined as, doesnt cover same sex?

Legal marriage has evolved to grant women equal status to men, to
allow for contraception, and to allow interracial couples to wed. Gay couples want legal marriage to extend definition like it has in the past to include couples regardless of gender.