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
  • 6
Do I hear Wedding Bells for Kenny?
Topic Started: May 15 2008, 10:11 AM (1,673 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
May 17 2008, 02:38 PM
By your logic, marriage must be an acceptable term to describe that type of human animal relationship.  You seem to be special pleading here if you think it is not applicable. If you are not special pleading, then what is an essential ingredient or characteristic of "marriage" that precludes these from being considered marriages?

What logic is that? I didn't attempt to 'reason' what marriage is, I pointed to empirical truths.

And no, a one paragraph write up in 'news of the weird' don't really signify societal acceptance. If you're interested in marital practices in India, I'm sure a lot has been written about them. I suspect that in general animal-human relationships aren't considered marriages (although I have read about women being married off to two brothers - not sure how common that is either)
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Mikhailoh
May 17 2008, 02:49 PM
TOTALLY OFF TOPIC for JON (I just know he is hanging in this thread) - I sent you a PM at WTF - let me know what you think.

Dang it Jon, stop starting new pages when I'm trying to get your attention.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Mikhailoh
May 17 2008, 02:52 PM
Mikhailoh
May 17 2008, 02:49 PM
TOTALLY OFF TOPIC for JON (I just know he is hanging in this thread) - I sent you a PM at WTF - let me know what you think.

Dang it Jon, stop starting new pages when I'm trying to get your attention.

Got it!
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
May 17 2008, 11:48 AM
ivorythumper
May 17 2008, 02:38 PM
- it seems to be a socially acceptable and accepted act...

What's your evidence for that? I've been to Tamil Nadu, and without exception the married couples I saw were human beings.

The newspaper article is the evidence. He doesn't seem to have been arrested for bestiality or anything.

There is another case in India of a 9 year old girl who married a dog

This happy event was witnessed by over 100 guests. It was done so at the recommendation of the village elders. Why is that not a marriage just like yours?

Your point that "without exception the married couples I saw were human beings." means nothing. 30 years ago that would have been said about heterosexuals.


jon-nyc
May 17 2008, 11:46 AM
jon-nyc
May 17 2008, 02:14 PM
No, it doesn't have enough support.  I'm sure most people in India wouldn't recognize it as a valid marriage.  One kook calling it marriage isn't enough, I wouldn't think.

So no, its not all the same thing.

I'll repeat myself, in case you missed this post.

I am not sure what your point actually is. So if a lot of kooks call it marriage it magically becomes a marriage? What about the Sudanese guy who married a goat at the order of his tribal council? Are they nuts? What of the Indian girl and her dog?

What is so different about them from the notion that saying gays can "marry" is also kooky? Political expediency?

Again, you seem to be guilty of special pleading.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
No, you are the one special pleading. You're the one who believes in some Platonic ideal of marriage to which we owe allegiance, despite the fact that it has been almost continuously violated throughout history by parts of mankind.

And you also seem to be reaching with these 'news of the weird' stories.

Is it your contention that human-animal marriages are a generally accepted practice in India?



In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
May 17 2008, 11:51 AM
ivorythumper
May 17 2008, 02:38 PM
By your logic, marriage must be an acceptable term to describe that type of human animal relationship.  You seem to be special pleading here if you think it is not applicable. If you are not special pleading, then what is an essential ingredient or characteristic of "marriage" that precludes these from being considered marriages?

What logic is that? I didn't attempt to 'reason' what marriage is, I pointed to empirical truths.

And no, a one paragraph write up in 'news of the weird' don't really signify societal acceptance. If you're interested in marital practices in India, I'm sure a lot has been written about them. I suspect that in general animal-human relationships aren't considered marriages (although I have read about women being married off to two brothers - not sure how common that is either)

Your logic is "What constitutes an acceptable marriage is culturally relative. It varies by both time and place."

Therefore, any culture can define what a marriage is. Unless you want to argue that some cultures have wrong understandings of marriage, then you seem to be stating that all marriages thus defined by the respective culture are equal.

So if a Sudanese village defines that marriage can occur between a man and goat, or an Indian village defines that a 9 year old girl can marry a dog, the logical extension of your position is that these instances have the same validity to the word "marriage" as some "temporary marriage" in another culture, or polygamous "marriage" in Utah, or your "marriage" to your spouse.

You claim that you are just pointing to "empirical truths", but when I do the same you don't want to consider those empirical truths that animal human marriage does occur. You seem to want desperately to avoid acknowledging that by your train of thought these animal human relationships are every bit as much marriage as your own, but you refuse to define any terms by which you can differentiate.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
:yawn:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
I see the source of your confusion now, IT. I don't think that one-off cases like the ones you've pointed to constitute societal acceptance.

I suspect you don't either.


I'll ask again though (you ignored it last time)

Is it your contention that marriages between humans and animals is a generally-accepted practice in India?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
May 17 2008, 12:12 PM
No, you are the one special pleading.  You're the one who believes in some Platonic ideal of marriage to which we owe allegiance, despite the fact that it has been almost continuously violated throughout history by parts of mankind. 

I already said I am not looking at any platonic ideal. Perhaps you missed that.
Quote:
 
Not at all some platonic ideal.


Your argument seems to be simply that because there have been institutionalized and cultural aberrations of the essential human relationship that human life is propagated by one man and one woman, that this seems to be the most optimal social foundation for communal life and the rearing of children, and that such relationships are optimized when permanent, exclusive, faithful, monogamous and of complementary sexes, that there is no such thing as a usable definition for marriage.

I am simply pointing out that the term "marriage" to connote such a relationship is perfectly adequate, and that once you try to move away from a defined understanding of that, there is nothing to ground understanding in. You have not shown on your own terms why a one night stand, or an animal human relationship, or cohabiting, or polygamy, etc should not be considered likewise "marriage".

That is all I have been seeking from you. Before anyone can discuss "gay marriage" we need to have some common understanding of what "marriage" is. So why don't you give a stab at actually defining it? -- after all, your "empirical truths" are useless if they do not lead you to any understanding of what things actually are.

Quote:
 


And you also seem to be reaching with these 'news of the weird' stories.

Don't expose yourself as a bigot or close minded. You are marginalizing people's real feelings and relationships by calling them "weird". People used to call homosexuals "queer" in the same regard.
Quote:
 


Is it your contention that human-animal marriages are a generally accepted practice in India?

They seem to be socially acceptable. Like the gay marriage movement, it is probably just a matter of time before the bigotry and hatred of people is overcome and equality is gained.

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
May 17 2008, 12:24 PM
I see the source of your confusion now, IT. I don't think that one-off cases like the ones you've pointed to constitute societal acceptance.

I suspect you don't either.


I'll ask again though (you ignored it last time)

Is it your contention that marriages between humans and animals is a generally-accepted practice in India?

I didn't ignore anything, Jon. We are leapfrogging our responses. You should be astute enough to recognize that.

There certainly is *social acceptance* with the Sudanese goat wife and the Indian dog husband. In both cases, the village elders and the social system seem to have participated in the happy events. They are publicly recognized as married and even called "married".

So you are left with this notion that "marriage" is only understandable as a social/cultural construct, and that all "marriages" thus defined are equal. Is that correct?

There can be no appeal to an essential human condition, or an optimal order to society that ought to be promoted. Is that correct?

It seems that, without your actually defining the term, the word "marriage" can be equally applied to any culturally agreed upon circumstance, regardless of intention to be exclusive, monogamous, faithful, permanent, stable, publicly recognized, entered into with full consent and mental capacity, between humans or interspecies, etc. Is that how you would have it?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
The problem with your analysis IT is that you are ignoring the people who were born as homosexuals, or, as some might formulate, the people whom God created as homosexuals.

They want to be part of loving couples also and have society recognize that as equally valid.

The good news is, we're trending toward acceptance of that in this country. That idea had almost no support when you and I were born, and today it has the support of a large number of people. Of the younger set its probably a majority.

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
May 17 2008, 12:48 PM
The problem with your analysis IT is that you are ignoring the people who were born as homosexuals, or, as some might formulate, the people whom God created as homosexuals.

They want to be part of loving couples also and have society recognize that as equally valid.

The good news is, we're trending toward acceptance of that in this country. That idea had almost no support when you and I were born, and today it has the support of a large number of people. Of the younger set its probably a majority.

Where have I ignored that? I am all in favor of homosexual relationships being publicly recognized to ensure their rights and to enforce their responsibilities.

I am in favor of domestic corporations that allow any number of consenting adults to do what they want, and to ensure their rights and to enforce their responsibilities.

I am opposed to the politics of rhetoric that would call two dissimilar things the same thing. I am opposed not on moral grounds, but on rational grounds. We name things differently if they are different. A one night stand is not a marriage. It is a disservice to human thought to consider them the same thing.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Well if you're that close I assume you'll eventually get used to the idea.

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
May 17 2008, 12:59 PM
I am in favor of domestic corporations that allow any number of consenting adults to do what they want, and to ensure their rights and to enforce their responsibilities. 


How would custody of minors and visitation rights of *legal guardians* be arbitrated when a domestic corporation is dissolved- would be it be dealt with in family court in a fashion similar to divorce selttlements? Or would it be dealt with as a civil court claim using precedents based on corporate settlements?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
May 17 2008, 01:02 PM
Well if you're that close I assume you'll eventually get used to the idea.

I am sure you'll get used to the idea of animal human marriages. :P
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
May 17 2008, 04:54 PM
jon-nyc
May 17 2008, 01:02 PM
Well if you're that close I assume you'll eventually get used to the idea.

I am sure you'll get used to the idea of animal human marriages. :P

Well all these years later I do find it really cute that my sister wanted to marry our cat when we were little. ;)
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I didn't dare to look into this thread so far. Is it worth reading the 16 pages?
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
May 17 2008, 01:59 PM
ivorythumper
May 17 2008, 04:54 PM
jon-nyc
May 17 2008, 01:02 PM
Well if you're that close I assume you'll eventually get used to the idea.

I am sure you'll get used to the idea of animal human marriages. :P

Well all these years later I do find it really cute that my sister wanted to marry our cat when we were little. ;)

There are some things that a sibling cannot let be forgotten. :P
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Klaus
May 17 2008, 02:01 PM
I didn't dare to look into this thread so far. Is it worth reading the 16 pages?

No, but do look at 2 c, f and p-s; 4 f; 7-9d passim; and 14 ff.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Renauda
May 17 2008, 04:41 PM
ivorythumper
May 17 2008, 12:59 PM
I am in favor of domestic corporations that allow any number of consenting adults to do what they want, and to ensure their rights and to enforce their responsibilities. 


How would custody of minors and visitation rights of *legal guardians* be arbitrated when a domestic corporation is dissolved- would be it be dealt with in family court in a fashion similar to divorce selttlements? Or would it be dealt with as a civil court claim using precedents based on corporate settlements?

That's the one thing that IT and I cannot agree on -- IT does not believe "domestic corporation" should be allowed to have guardian ship over minor (in effect, gay couple will never be allowed to adopt). I disagree. We've discussed this a few times before, I doubt anything new would come out in this thread if we revisit this issue again. :shrug:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
May 17 2008, 04:56 PM

That's the one thing that IT and I cannot agree on -- IT does not believe "domestic corporation" should be allowed to have guardian ship over minor (in effect, gay couple will never be allowed to adopt). I disagree. We've discussed this a few times before, I doubt anything new would come out in this thread if we revisit this issue again. :shrug:

No, Ax, I doubt any ground would be gained.

It seems too compelling to me that in cases of necessity where the state needs to assign new guardians that it is in the general best interest of the child to approximate as closely as possible the natural family. By that, the default ought to be the heterosexual couple. The menage a beaucoup and the cohabiting couple would be likewise excluded. Do you think that such groups should also be allowed to adopt? I have serious concerns about singles adopting as well, which is not at all a judgment on their intentions or their individual capacities as parents. It is a matter of what is best for the child, all other things being equal.

You seem more interested in the political implications of "family" or some extrinsic concern for "rights" than what is the best interest of the child, is that correct?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
My word.

I do believe this the longest running thread I have ever started here!

:party:
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Mark
May 17 2008, 08:11 PM
My word.

I do believe this the longest running thread I have ever started here!

:party:

:clap:
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
You need to set your page views to 90. :P
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
May 17 2008, 09:09 PM
The menage a beaucoup and the cohabiting couple would be likewise excluded.

Ahh, but lots of kids are raised by human-animal combos. Think of all those single moms out there with cats.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6