Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 9
Senate rejects gay marriage ban
Topic Started: Jun 7 2006, 08:07 AM (2,298 Views)
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Hold your horses son. Until the day a person ties the knot and solemnizes a monogamous vow- everyone is polyamourist.


What do you mean?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Jun 9 2006, 12:02 PM
Nope. I told you it was going to be an ongoing struggle to resist the temptation. You should understand ongoing struggles to resist temptation.

Been there. done that. Doing it. Over and over.

Must....

stop....


uhnnn.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 12:50 PM
Quote:
 
Hold your horses son. Until the day a person ties the knot and solemnizes a monogamous vow- everyone is polyamourist.


What do you mean?

Go on now, you're not that innocent.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 12:44 PM
Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 04:28 PM
From 89th..

Quote:
 
An interesting point. I'll put it this way, which should cover it all. I support a federal ammendment to say that "marriage is between one man, and one woman, who are consenting adults, and unrelated." Of course, it would be worded more eloquently, but you get my drift.

I think it's because incestuous sex is illegal in every state. I think polygamy is as well. Homosexual sex was also illegal until recently, IIRC.

OK, then I'll make this my definition..

'"marriage is between one man, and one woman two individuals, who are consenting adults, and unrelated."


And polyamory?

If there's nothing wrong with two people getting married.

Is there something so wrong with three people getting married?

Serious question.

But 89th, your concern is the same whether it is two men, two women or a man and a woman.

We do have laws which reject certain types of relationships -- generally it is for a good reason, not just because they fail to meet a definition. The laws against polygamy and incest are two of these. Why assume that allowing same-sex marriage would change the rationale for these restrictions?

I truly have yet to see a good reason to deny gay marriage.

I hear two most often...

1. It has always been male/female. It should stay that way. But when challenged, no one can give a reasonable answer as to why it needs to.

This is really the bottom line of thumpster's reasoning. He feels there is a wisdom in the tradition that should be respected. The problem is, he can't explain why it should be respected.

2. It will damage the institution of marriage. But again, when challenged, no one can say how.

The only reason I have ever heard that even begins to approach a valid reason is that it is good for children to be in a stable household and that the children are best served by having both a male and a female parental influence in their lives.

The problem with this is twofold. 1) the society does not see it important enough to codify and already supports children being raised in households other than this. And 2) it fails the common sense and logic test because it would claim that a child is better served in a household with a male/female couple, even if that household is deeply and severely dysfunctional, rather than in a stable household with two loving parents of the same gender.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Jun 9 2006, 02:03 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 12:50 PM
Quote:
 
Hold your horses son. Until the day a person ties the knot and solemnizes a monogamous vow- everyone is polyamourist.


What do you mean?

Go on now, you're not that innocent.

polyamo(u)ry is the new PC term for bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, polygyny and another combination of more than 1 man + 1 woman you can think of.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 02:06 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 12:44 PM
Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 04:28 PM
From 89th..

Quote:
 
An interesting point. I'll put it this way, which should cover it all. I support a federal ammendment to say that "marriage is between one man, and one woman, who are consenting adults, and unrelated." Of course, it would be worded more eloquently, but you get my drift.

I think it's because incestuous sex is illegal in every state. I think polygamy is as well. Homosexual sex was also illegal until recently, IIRC.

OK, then I'll make this my definition..

'"marriage is between one man, and one woman two individuals, who are consenting adults, and unrelated."


And polyamory?

If there's nothing wrong with two people getting married.

Is there something so wrong with three people getting married?

Serious question.

But 89th, your concern is the same whether it is two men, two women or a man and a woman.

We do have laws which reject certain types of relationships -- generally it is for a good reason, not just because they fail to meet a definition. The laws against polygamy and incest are two of these. Why assume that allowing same-sex marriage would change the rationale for these restrictions?

I truly have yet to see a good reason to deny gay marriage.

I hear two most often...

1. It has always been male/female. It should stay that way. But when challenged, no one can give a reasonable answer as to why it needs to.

This is really the bottom line of thumpster's reasoning. He feels there is a wisdom in the tradition that should be respected. The problem is, he can't explain why it should be respected.

2. It will damage the institution of marriage. But again, when challenged, no one can say how.

The only reason I have ever heard that even begins to approach a valid reason is that it is good for children to be in a stable household and that the children are best served by having both a male and a female parental influence in their lives.

The problem with this is twofold. 1) the society does not see it important enough to codify and already supports children being raised in households other than this. And 2) it fails the common sense and logic test because it would claim that a child is better served in a household with a male/female couple, even if that household is deeply and severely dysfunctional, rather than in a stable household with two loving parents of the same gender.

Rick: you are again trying to drag the arguments on to your own turf. You obviously have not followed the arguments above, as much as you claim to have done so.

Go back and reread a second or a third time until your reading comprehension improves.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 01:07 PM
AlbertaCrude
Jun 9 2006, 02:03 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 12:50 PM
Quote:
 
Hold your horses son. Until the day a person ties the knot and solemnizes a monogamous vow- everyone is polyamourist.


What do you mean?

Go on now, you're not that innocent.

polyamo(u)ry is the new PC term for bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, polygyny and another combination of more than 1 man + 1 woman you can think of.

So I discovered a week or so ago from our resident antipope.

To me, it simply means that you like to play the field, or if you're a normal single male looking for beaver- run a trapline.

:sombrero:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Jun 9 2006, 02:19 PM
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 01:07 PM
AlbertaCrude
Jun 9 2006, 02:03 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 12:50 PM
Quote:
 
Hold your horses son. Until the day a person ties the knot and solemnizes a monogamous vow- everyone is polyamourist.


What do you mean?

Go on now, you're not that innocent.

polyamo(u)ry is the new PC term for bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, polygyny and another combination of more than 1 man + 1 woman you can think of.

So I discovered a week or so ago from our resident antipope.

To me, it simply means that you like to play the field, or if you're a normal single male looking for beaver- run a trapline.

:sombrero:

Then for some, that doesn't stop when some tie the knot.... :lol:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 01:24 PM
AlbertaCrude
Jun 9 2006, 02:19 PM
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 01:07 PM
AlbertaCrude
Jun 9 2006, 02:03 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 12:50 PM
Quote:
 
Hold your horses son. Until the day a person ties the knot and solemnizes a monogamous vow- everyone is polyamourist.


What do you mean?

Go on now, you're not that innocent.

polyamo(u)ry is the new PC term for bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, polygyny and another combination of more than 1 man + 1 woman you can think of.

So I discovered a week or so ago from our resident antipope.

To me, it simply means that you like to play the field, or if you're a normal single male looking for beaver- run a trapline.

:sombrero:

Then for some, that doesn't stop when some tie the knot.... :lol:

That's a cultural trait. Vivre le difference
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 04:47 PM
AlbertaCrude
Jun 9 2006, 04:45 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 12:38 PM
AlbertaCrude
Jun 9 2006, 04:21 PM
Pope Innocence LXXXIX wrote
 
I support a federal ammendment to say that "marriage is between one man, and one woman, who are consenting adults, and unrelated." Of course, it would be worded more eloquently, but you get my drift.



Don't you think the "consenting adults" clause is a bit modernist and Western. What about immigrant cultures in which arranged marriages are the norm? Seems to me that in such cases all one of the partners would have to do after X years of not so blissful conjugal life is go to the coursts and say, "Look My Lord (or in the US, Your Honour), it was all arranged by my parents or face disgrace, I never, or we never never consented to anything". Marriage annulled.

"Consenting" is modernist and Western? So? The definition would apply to the USA. Don't remember any arranged marriages lately...

Couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic, so sorry for the serious reply...

Do a bit of digging and find out what the norm is for most if not all Sikh, Hindu and Pakistani Muslim immigrant families. While you're at it, check a few traditions not uncommon to some South Slav communities. They don't check all marriage traditions at the door when the immigrate to North America.

I also have heard that arranged marriages do occur within some Mormon circles.

Well I do know they happen in other cultures, I didn't think they were a reality here, if they are though, my mistake.

I had a number of Indian and Pakistani friends in the UK. They'd often go on holiday one summer, and come back married. For many of them there were no girlfriends, no pre-marital slap and tickle, nothing. I imagine it's much the same for Indian communities in the US. I'm not sure whether it led to happier marriages or not, but it did lend itself to them being considerably more hard working at university.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Not at all uncommon among Indian and Pakistani immigrants here either.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Rick,

Quote:
 
But 89th, your concern is the same whether it is two men, two women or a man and a woman.

We do have laws which reject certain types of relationships -- generally it is for a good reason, not just because they fail to meet a definition. The laws against polygamy and incest are two of these. Why assume that allowing same-sex marriage would change the rationale for these restrictions?


Currently polygamy, incest, and homosexual marriage are not allowed.

You want to change the definition of marriage as proposed in the senate, to eliminating the gender requirements. Why would you change the gender requirement, but not change the quantity requirement? Is a couple of 2 people really worse than a couple of 3? Surely you have to be fair...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 9