So, what IS marriage now?

[JimL]

Since the Supreme Court has redefined legal marriage, what IS the definition of marriage now?

They didn't redefine marriage, they redefined who can marry.

[shunyadragon]

You say the state is using criteria that are thousands of years old; so what? Those criteria are all cultural or religious traditions and should be ejected in a pluralistic legal system, according to your reasoning above.

No I did not say that. I said states, nations, kingdoms, and whatever have criteria and definitions for 'marriage' for thousands of years.

There should be no legal "marriage" at all. (And therefore no criteria.) Instead of criteria distinguishing between persons, there should be equality before the law.

This would anarchistic allowing for marriages including children, and whatever. I would like to here the logic you can offer for this foolish line of reasoning.

[Joel]

There should be no legal "marriage" at all. (And therefore no criteria.) Instead of criteria distinguishing between persons, there should be equality before the law.

This would anarchistic allowing for marriages including children, and whatever.

If we are talking about legal "marriage", then, no, it would not, because there would be no legal marriage at all.

On the other hand if you are talking about "marriage" in the eyes of random people, then your "anarchistic" scenario is already the case. Today, anyone is legally free to think of themselves or anyone else as "married" or "not-married" in their own eyes (as long as they don't mean legal "marriage"). It's freedom of thought, and freedom of speech. Today there are already people who consider themselves to be polygamously married (though not legally "married"). Today couples can have a big wedding in a church and consider themselves married, though they are not legally "married". This has always been the case. Nothing about any of this would be changed by what I've proposed.

They didn't redefine marriage, they redefined who can marry.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.
Consider that the government, if it wanted to, could "redefine who can marry" such that single individuals can be legally "married" too. But that would also redefine "marriage", by defining away the requirement of having two people. Similarly, the requirement of having a husband and wife has been legally defined away.

[JimL]

If we are talking about legal "marriage", then, no, it would not, because there would be no legal marriage at all.

On the other hand if you are talking about "marriage" in the eyes of random people, then your "anarchistic" scenario is already the case. Today, anyone is legally free to think of themselves or anyone else as "married" or "not-married" in their own eyes (as long as they don't mean legal "marriage"). It's freedom of thought, and freedom of speech. Today there are already people who consider themselves to be polygamously married (though not legally "married"). Today couples can have a big wedding in a church and consider themselves married, though they are not legally "married". This has always been the case. Nothing about any of this would be changed by what I've proposed.

But we are talking about legal marriage, and who it is that is free to become legally married and be elligible for the legal benefits thereof.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

They are not necessarily mutually exclusive according to ones personal opinion, but they are mutually exclusive as far as the legal opinion of the Supreme court is concerned.

Consider that the government, if it wanted to, could "redefine who can marry" such that single individuals can be legally "married" too.

Now you are really reaching!

But that would also redefine "marriage", by defining away the requirement of having two people. Similarly, the requirement of having a husband and wife has been legally defined away.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, is only recognizing the fact that traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman has been discriminating against a certain segment of the population due to ignorance. Marriage itself is no different now than it was before the Courts decision. They didn't redefine the meaning of marriage itself, the underlying meaning is the same whether you are a heterosexual or a homosexual couple, what the Supreme Court did was to uphold the law against discrimination.

[Joel]

The Supreme Court, in its decision, is only recognizing the fact that traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman has been discriminating against a certain segment of the population due to ignorance. Marriage itself is no different now than it was before the Courts decision. They didn't redefine the meaning of marriage itself, the underlying meaning is the same whether you are a heterosexual or a homosexual couple, what the Supreme Court did was to uphold the law against discrimination.

See the part I bold-ed. The definition required one man and one woman. Now it doesn't. You can argue that the old definition was bad and discriminatory. You can argue that the change in definition is a good change. But you can't seriously argue that the definition didn't change.

[JimL]

See the part I bold-ed. The definition required one man and one woman. Now it doesn't. You can argue that the old definition was bad and discriminatory. You can argue that the change in definition is a good change. But you can't seriously argue that the definition didn't change.

That marriage at one time pertained only to heterosexuals did not define what marriage itself is, it only defined who marriage pertained to. Two different things. Marriage means a whole lot more than who it pertains to.

[Tassman]

See the part I bold-ed. The definition required one man and one woman. Now it doesn't. You can argue that the old definition was bad and discriminatory. You can argue that the change in definition is a good change. But you can't seriously argue that the definition didn't change.

But ‘marriage’ itself has a much broader definition:

Marriage: "Any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage" - Dictionary.com

[Joel]

That marriage at one time pertained only to heterosexuals did not define what marriage itself is, it only defined who marriage pertained to. Two different things. Marriage means a whole lot more than who it pertains to.

"who marriage pertained to" is part of the definition of marriage. Sure, being a part does not mean it's the whole of the definition.
But if part of the definition is changed, then the definition is changed (i.e., the definition is not the same as it was).

[JimL]

"who marriage pertained to" is part of the definition of marriage. Sure, being a part does not mean it's the whole of the definition.
But if part of the definition is changed, then the definition is changed (i.e., the definition is not the same as it was).

Yes, so there is a superficial change within the definition of marriage which erases the ignorance of its old discriminating factor. So what. Whats your point? The State by doing so is merely recognizing and correcting the ignorant discriminatory practices against certain segments of the population. Not sure what your problem is with this other than your continued bias against the equal rights of homosexuals.

[Joel]

Yes, so there is a superficial change within the definition of marriage which erases the ignorance of its old discriminating factor. So what. Whats your point? The State by doing so is merely recognizing and correcting the ignorant discriminatory practices against certain segments of the population. Not sure what your problem is with this other than your continued bias against the equal rights of homosexuals.

My point is merely what I said already: You can argue that the old definition was bad and discriminatory. You can argue that the change in definition is a good change. But you can't seriously argue that the definition didn't change. You aren't going to get anywhere claiming that marriage wasn't redefined. You'd be better off saying, "Yes, it changed and it's a great change."

[shunyadragon]

"who marriage pertained to" is part of the definition of marriage. Sure, being a part does not mean it's the whole of the definition.
But if part of the definition is changed, then the definition is changed (i.e., the definition is not the same as it was).

One question I asked earlier and you have not respond is . . .

How should 'marriage' be defined and function in society in your view, and why?

[Joel]

One question I asked earlier and you have not respond is . . .

How should 'marriage' be defined and function in society in your view, and why?

In my view: As far as the law is concerned (and that's all I'm concerned about in this thread) there should be no legal definition at all. The thoughts and speech of citizens about "marriage" would fall under normal/general protections of freedom of thought and speech. And I've already given reasons why.

[shunyadragon]

In my view: As far as the law is concerned (and that's all I'm concerned about in this thread) there should be no legal definition at all. The thoughts and speech of citizens about "marriage" would fall under normal/general protections of freedom of thought and speech. And I've already given reasons why.

I do not consider this an acceptable response. You have not given the why, nor have you present and alternative, since you negate all forms of secular civil marriage..

[JimL]

My point is merely what I said already: You can argue that the old definition was bad and discriminatory. You can argue that the change in definition is a good change. But you can't seriously argue that the definition didn't change. You aren't going to get anywhere claiming that marriage wasn't redefined. You'd be better off saying, "Yes, it changed and it's a great change."

No, sorry, but nowhere is it specified that marriage is defined as a heterosexual bond. The bond and what it implies is what marriage is all about, is what defines marriage, not who it is that marries. Nothing in that definition has been changed because of same sex marriages now be recognized.

[Tassman]

My point is merely what I said already: You can argue that the old definition was bad and discriminatory. You can argue that the change in definition is a good change. But you can't seriously argue that the definition didn't change. You aren't going to get anywhere claiming that marriage wasn't redefined. You'd be better off saying, "Yes, it changed and it's a great change."

But the definition of marriage didn't change. Once again:

Marriage: "Any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage."- Dictionary.com

What has changed is the legal recognition of SSM, not the definition of marriage itself.