Gay marriage should never be recognize by the state because...

[Ming]

This new evil Ming is really...refreshing. I always knew that avatar was a real picture of you.

Nah... the real evil in this world are the religious zealots who want to cram their silly superstitions onto everybody else.
I think religious couplings should be renamed to something like Religious bondage, or Religious union, and leave the broader term of marriage to everybody else. Then they can continue all their silly rites and believe in their own mythical gods and leave the rest of the people alone.

Just think of all the deaths that are done in the name of religions... they are simply evil.

[Heraclitus]

Yes, this is true, but I still seriously doubt anyone actually thinks "well, I could use a condom, but since modern antibiotics are available, what the hell?" That's kind of like, "well, I could make him use a condom, but if I get pregnant I can just have an abortion." Who willingly and deliberately risks having to go through that?

I'm more thinking along the lines of someone who has the self-discipline to use a condom consistently is also less likely to be promiscuous. The odds of a condom helping you are higher if you have to overcome instinct and delay. The odds of antibiotics helping you are not dependant on overcoming instinct. Antibiotics fix more bacterial infections than condoms prevent. This affects social mores since viral sexually transmitted diseases aren't as big a thing (with AIDS being a counterexample and herpes being a rather benign one).

There is a whole class of people to dumb and with too high a time preference to use any form of contraception but smart enough to **** like bunnies, they are generally the ones doing the breeding today.


Also the line of thought process "its just chlamydia/gonorrhoea" and sometimes even syphilis is something quite common in my generation over here. It might have something to do with Slovenia's very very low rate of HIV infected people.

[Heraclitus]

:whooshingoverheadsmilie: Wow. Simply wow. You are hopeless.

Ok I clearly tried and failed to get a reasonable citicism of my speculation that without antibiotics marriage would be stronger.
Why don't you provide one?

[DaShi]

****

[Ming]

Simple answer... marriages are what couples make of them. It's personal and between the two people. If there is a "problem", nothing else really matters. They are just excuses and nothing else. A strong marriage will be a strong marriage with or without antibiotics.

[Heraclitus]

Simple answer... marriages are what couples make of them. It's personal and between the two people. If there is a "problem", nothing else really matters. They are just excuses and nothing else. A strong marriage will be a strong marriage with or without antibiotics.

I'm not talking about personal relationship but the value a society puts on the institution of marriage and the state of that institution. I'm saying that where antibiotics never created society would have a stronger reason to promote marriage and that thus there would be more married people or married people would generally stick more to say monogamy than they do in our world of easily available ones.

[DriXnaK]

Yes, it's true, but then again, how many deaths have been in the name of socialism and communism?

[Ming]

I'm saying that where antibiotics never created society would have a stronger reason to promote marriage and that thus there would be more married people or married people would generally stick more to say monogamy than they do in our world of easily available ones.

I still say BS. People who consider cheating on thier spouse will do so with or without antibiotics. That's just an excuse, and doesn't address the core issue of trust, partnership, and love. A strong marriage is just that... STRONG. A weak marriage is where either partner is looking for "action" somewhere else. And frankly, I see no reason why society should promote marriages that aren't strong and just marriages in name only. The divorce rate continues to climb, and so do the diseases that can be transmitted. The now KILLER diseases haven't slowed down the rate of divorce. I simply don't buy your antibiotic argument.

[DriXnaK]

To be honest, the antibiotic argument is really out there. lol I'm amazed this argument has gone on as long as it has.

[Dinner]

Simple answer... marriages are what couples make of them. It's personal and between the two people. If there is a "problem", nothing else really matters. They are just excuses and nothing else. A strong marriage will be a strong marriage with or without antibiotics.

Until the STD comes into the picture...

But ignore EON/Drix because he both sucks **** and is a dumb ass. Besides I'm sure he has OCD.

[germanos]

I already said a religions or personal ceremony should be non-resistant from the state's perspective.

You do realize you are fighting over words right?

That's ok. Arguments often are over words. And I must say that in the following you don't make the use/definition of the word marriage any clearer.

What harm does it do to let religious people keep the word marriage. Heck I'm not denying the word marriage to atheists or gays either (private ceremony also some Christians see no problem in marrying homosexuals), I'm just asking the contract be called a civil union to let the word (marriage?)be free from state definition.

Religious people can't 'keep' the word marriage, as it was never exclusively theirs. Which you actually explain yourself below.

The reason I want to keep the word is since the word is associated with the old concept which doesn't describe the contract definition that is in use today, just look over human history. Marriage was a reproductive arrangement and economic unit that tied together a man and and a (few?) women or a single woman into a reproductive agreement. You remain chaste so I know my son is min and I'll support you.

Eventually religious symbolism evolved around it

[snip]

Perhaps a new word could be found for the traditional notion of marriage, but why should the old thing be given a new name instead of the new thing?

This is an argument to keep marriage tied to the pre-religious marriage as you described and that if the religious people can't stand that nowadays many people view marriage again in that original definition it is indeed up to them to create a new term.
I don't care if they can call their union marriage as well if they want to, but they should lay an exclusive claim on the term precisely because it was never theirs to begin with.

Also what do you think about letting people customize the marriage? Also why are you limiting the contract to just two people? Such a definition of such a contract is as arbitrary as the American conservative formulation of a thing between a man and a woman.

I guess I'm more a traditionalist then I'm aware of
I assume that with marriage you actually meant 'civil union'? This since you earlier tied marriage to the religious union and that (presumably) cannot be customized other then by the (any) church?

[MikeH]

If it was up to me, I wouldn't limit marriage to just 2 people.

Have whatever configuration you want. On the condition that it's entered into freely by all parties and is not in anyway abusive or coercive. But that goes for a traditional marriage too, so same rules for everyone.

[Elok]

You keep saying that government should be kept out of marriages... That marriages are for relgions only, not the state. So stop changing the subject.

...no, you just have really crappy reading skills, or else you simply missed my first post entirely by latching onto the second like a leech. My original argument, in that thread long ago, had little to do with religion in the first place as well. Your bringing it up as a reply to that argument was a non sequitur then, and you apparently don't see how it's irrelevant now. Pay attention:

I am saying that the legal rights/privileges/scooby snacks which go along with marriage--the legally significant parts of marriage--do not necessarily have to be tied to a sexual relationship. I know of no reason why tax rights, hospital visitation and all the rest should not be given to any set of two or more people who feel they need them. If two unrelated old ladies living in one home wish to file their taxes together, as they jointly run their "household," we should grant them that right regardless of whether or not they are having a sexual relationship. The matter of whether any given set of people are regularly having sex should be none of the government's concern. As a matter of fact, it already is, practically speaking; large numbers of people cohabit and even have kids without getting the government's seal of approval in the form of a marriage certificate.

Now, I did make some snide remarks about nonreligious marriage, and on reflection they were over the line, and I retract and apologize for them. To be fair, however, YOU, MIKEH AND COMPANY WERE ALL BEING COLOSSAL DICKS. If you'd like me to be nicer to you, perhaps you could start by making some vague attempt to be polite yourself?

[Heraclitus]

I am saying that the legal rights/privileges/scooby snacks which go along with marriage--the legally significant parts of marriage--do not necessarily have to be tied to a sexual relationship. I know of no reason why tax rights, hospital visitation and all the rest should not be given to any set of two or more people who feel they need them. If two unrelated old ladies living in one home wish to file their taxes together, as they jointly run their "household," we should grant them that right regardless of whether or not they are having a sexual relationship. The matter of whether any given set of people are regularly having sex should be none of the government's concern. As a matter of fact, it already is, practically speaking; large numbers of people cohabit and even have kids without getting the government's seal of approval in the form of a marriage certificate.

+1

[MOBIUS]

Now, I did make some snide remarks about nonreligious marriage, and on reflection they were over the line, and I retract and apologize for them. To be fair, however, YOU, MIKEH AND COMPANY WERE ALL BEING COLOSSAL DICKS. If you'd like me to be nicer to you, perhaps you could start by making some vague attempt to be polite yourself?

I don't see how anyone was being a colossal dick to you, just disagreeing with you - is that all one has to do to be a colossal dick to you these days...?