Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
So, what IS marriage now?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostYou 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.
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.Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-29-2015, 08:38 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostOriginally posted by JoelThere should be no legal "marriage" at all. (And therefore no criteria.) Instead of criteria distinguishing between persons, there should be equality before the law.
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.
Originally posted by JimL View PostThey didn't redefine marriage, they redefined who can marry.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostIf 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.
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.Last edited by JimL; 07-30-2015, 03:53 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThe 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostSee 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostSee 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThat 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.
But if part of the definition is changed, then the definition is changed (i.e., the definition is not the same as it was).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View Post"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).
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostYes, 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View Post"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).
How should 'marriage' be defined and function in society in your view, and why?
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostOne question I asked earlier and you have not respond is . . .
How should 'marriage' be defined and function in society in your view, and why?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostIn 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostMy 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."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostMy 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."
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.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 11:06 AM
|
3 responses
62 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Today, 05:00 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Today, 07:03 AM
|
16 responses
86 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 02:40 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:51 AM
|
0 responses
20 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 09:51 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-16-2024, 05:00 PM
|
0 responses
32 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
05-16-2024, 05:00 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-16-2024, 11:43 AM
|
201 responses
765 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 01:21 PM
|
Comment