Missouri anti-gay marriage const. amendment headed for victory

[Kuciwalker]

...

So your argument boils down to "marriage should be this way, because I say it is".

[Kontiki]

Way to completely avoid my points, PA. You're a hero.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
...

So your argument boils down to "marriage should be this way, because I say it is".

Go and read my posts again.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
...

So your argument boils down to "marriage should be this way, because I say it is".

not that i am siding with PA, but what he seems to be saying is this is the way marriage is, because that's the way it's always been.

[Elok]

Hmm. Why not, this seems like a fun stupid argument to get into. For starters, what do you think the purpose of marriage is, PA and opponents? Seems like the best place to begin is to decide what it's all for and why it should or shouldn't be exclusive to specific combinations of genitalia...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by C0ckney
not that i am siding with PA, but what he seems to be saying is this is the way marriage is, because that's the way it's always been.

But it hasn't always been that way, as various cultures have had same-sex marriages. There are even records of such marriages being performed in the Middle Ages under the auspices of Catholicism.

But until recently, marriage was "always" about a legal contract, not love or mutual commitment. It was "always" about an unequal power arrangement where the man dominated the woman. It was "always" prohibitive of interracial couplings. It was "always" prohibitive of cross-class couplings. It was "always" this that and the other. But those things changed, but it was still marriage.

[alva]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
*snip*

You need to make something exclusive to give it value.

That's where the love part comes, that's what's sets it apart...


-
Excuse me, though I mean what i say, I'm going to have to puke now....

[Az]

But it hasn't always been that way, as various cultures have had same-sex marriages. There are even records of such marriages being performed in the Middle Ages under the auspices of Catholicism.

I've got a really bad feeling about this one...

[MrFun]

How does two men or two women marrying each other diminish the value of the institution of marriage?


And I have to disagree with Imran in withdrawing government involvement from marriage. The privleges that go with marriage are invaluable.

[Whaleboy]

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now you homophiles need to state what rules you would have governing who can and who can't get married. Is it for only two people? Or as many as you want, etc?

Homophiles?

Marriage, to me, is a contract binding two people together for their own ends not societies. It may be love, procreation, money, sex, a clean house or free sex etc! That is for the participants sake. Being the economist, sociologist, historian, "man of the people" and thoroughbred intellectual you make yourself out to be, you should be familiar with such notions of contractualism. You will also be aware that historical definitions of a given contract, for example marriage, tend to change. The law in general is a perfect example of that. Marriage as a definition of a type of contract is fluctuant and malluable since primarily it concerns the people engaged within. It thus boils down to the only rules as such being that the people who engage in that contract (marriage) are of sound mind and free will.

Why are you being bigotted to willing polygamists?

No-one said he was.

You need to make something exclusive to give it value.

Ah! The value is defined by those who wish to engage in it (their own demand). To make it exclusive... well let's see... a legal recognition of a given relationship? The relationship itself is the exclusivity!

not that i am siding with PA, but what he seems to be saying is this is the way marriage is, because that's the way it's always been.

It's always been that way because there was never a demand for it to be any other way. It is not some holy institution or some sacred function of inviolable Western civilisation, it is a contract, it is a functional, wonderful agreement.

[Snowflake]

What is marriage any way? The key to the argument is why we are arguing it.

Is it just for the name? If the definition of marriage is "a legal union between a man and a woman", then too bad two people of the same sex cannot have it by definition. Just like a table cannot be called a bed even if you can sleep on it sometimes. And there's nothing unfair about it. We can simply give it a name for "the legal union between two men" or "the legal union between two women", like we name tables table and beds bed.

But the real issue here is not the name. It is the benefit that is associated with the name, eg. tax deductions, etc. Should two people of the same sex who have mutual feelings toward each other have the same benefit as a married couple? That is the real issue.

[Whaleboy]

Snowflake:

The issue with the definition is that it has a certain air of legitimacy about it. It may sound vain but it is important to some, which fine fair enough. It would be fine if it were on the same lines as claiming I am blonde when I am dark, but in my opinion the very definition of marriage is flexible. A "marriage" between two objects, ideas, sounds etc is not a man and a woman, nor need there be masculine or feminine attributes to them.

[Snowflake]

In my view, marriage is a form that a society warrants for the sake of the continuity of the human race. Marriage is not essential for the continuity of the human race, but it is a basic unit for the society. A family forms the basis of economic activities, and thus serves to stablize the society. It reflects a society's economical, spiritual and moral standard. There was once it was legal for a man to have multiple wifes. Of couse we could redefine marriage so that it allows same sex unions, as long as it will not disrupt the normal order of the society. But then we could also redefine it so that more than two people could marry each other. Where should we draw the line?

I believe there is a husband and a wife in a marriage. I'm not sure if there is such things in a gay union. Or do we need to redefine that also? What if a child is involved? Do we need to redefine what mother and father means? If we have to redefine everything, why couldn't we simply use another name and recognize that it is just not the same thing?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by C0ckney
not that i am siding with PA, but what he seems to be saying is this is the way marriage is, because that's the way it's always been.

Little better.

[MrFun]

It's frightening to argue on the basis because that's the way things have always been.

Slavery has been prevalent in human history for longer period of time than it has been abolished in most parts of the word now today. Should we have never abolished slavery because that was the way it always has been?