General Discussion

malthaussen

(17,194 posts)

35. Poster defines "marriage" as being among members of both sexes

Sun May 13, 2012, 07:05 PM

May 2012

... and says that marriage, by this definition, has never been denied gays. "Equality" does not enter into his argument.

Basically, it appears to me the poster is trying to demonstrate that "marriage" by definition requires participation by both sexes, because that is how it has been defined historically and across cultures. Accordingly, two individuals of the same sex cannot marry, by definition, and that is a rational argument against gay marriage. The poster then goes on to elaborate that the marriage state is bound up with religion, again historically and across cultures, and that thus it is no simple manner to simply make a civil declaration of gay eligibility to marry -- which is not an argument against such marriage, just a notice that it is difficult.

-- Mal

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

58 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Have you ever heard anyone ever give a single 'coherent' reason to be against marriage equality? [View all] NNN0LHI May 2012 OP

No, Sir: And If they Meant It About 'Preserving Marriage' They Would Be Crusading Against Divorce... The Magistrate May 2012 #1

And adultery. nt laundry_queen May 2012 #29

And many a battle against those -- divorce and adultery -- has been fought and lost. JDPriestly May 2012 #36

Hell, I have a pretty good imagination and I can't even THINK of one. I've certainly ... 11 Bravo May 2012 #2

Of Course. Any person that owns a co. that will have to pony up health care, retirement, etc. WingDinger May 2012 #3

Actually, retirement benefits can go to whomever one designates. GoCubsGo May 2012 #10

Not so with Social Security, which is all the retirement $ most folks will ever see. kestrel91316 May 2012 #16

that's not a "cogent" argument (as the OP asked)...it's an argument that denying civil rights saves CreekDog May 2012 #28

So that lesbian woman at the next desk should pay for Social Security that JDPriestly May 2012 #37

They can't say it, but they try to dance around it... targetpractice May 2012 #4

Nope sakabatou May 2012 #5

No Solly Mack May 2012 #6

Yes thelordofhell May 2012 #7

Well, "Because I don't like it" is a perfectly coherent reason malthaussen May 2012 #8

I've never heard a single rational argument about why marriage equality may be detrimental to ANYONE kestrel91316 May 2012 #17

There is one just upthread. malthaussen May 2012 #20

Most/many employers do not cover family Ruby the Liberal May 2012 #22

No. Starry Messenger May 2012 #9

I never have. Jazzgirl May 2012 #11

Nope Kalidurga May 2012 #12

no d_r May 2012 #13

sure arely staircase May 2012 #14

Well, Since You Asked, On the Road May 2012 #15

Not bad. But you ignore the Common Law. malthaussen May 2012 #19

marriage does not require a wedding in texas arely staircase May 2012 #21

I don't know if it's still the case, but at one time in Texas HillWilliam May 2012 #31

dont know about the two witnesses0 arely staircase May 2012 #47

No marriage requires a wedding obamanut2012 May 2012 #53

First, what state requires a ceremony Ruby the Liberal May 2012 #23

It's not that hard to parse malthaussen May 2012 #25

Then that isn't an argument for equal marriage, IMO. Ruby the Liberal May 2012 #33

Poster defines "marriage" as being among members of both sexes malthaussen May 2012 #35

In fact, as I have posted in the past, the word "marriage" has two meanings. JDPriestly May 2012 #38

The religious definition is prior to the civil definition, however. malthaussen May 2012 #39

Yes, the religious one came first, which is why people are confused. JDPriestly May 2012 #56

I was using "prior" in the logical sense... malthaussen May 2012 #57

Never in my lifetime. Rex May 2012 #18

No. All the arguments start from the false premise that homosexuality is an abomination. aikoaiko May 2012 #24

Just to play Devil's advocate for a moment malthaussen May 2012 #26

the need for small tribes arely staircase May 2012 #27

Ha, I hadn't thought of that at all malthaussen May 2012 #30

That is because in primitive societies and earlier ages, society feared underpopulation. JDPriestly May 2012 #40

but all societies everywhere have not so conspired RainDog May 2012 #45

As to your first point malthaussen May 2012 #46

actually, that's not the case RainDog May 2012 #49

Ah, interesting. Dr Boswell would appear to have lucked into a good lode malthaussen May 2012 #51

Oh, and what I also find really interesting RainDog May 2012 #50

Most people haven't read The Source malthaussen May 2012 #52

thanks for the conversation RainDog May 2012 #54

The pleasure was mine, assuredly. malthaussen May 2012 #58

I heard Rush Limbaugh talking about it interfering with his ability to get married every couple of madinmaryland May 2012 #32

yes " I don't want to do ritual you straight people do" said one of my childhood friends, He said it mulsh May 2012 #34

I don't belive the polls, I don't think anyone for the most part, cares if gays get married. crazyjoe May 2012 #41

Then with respect, you live up to your user name malthaussen May 2012 #42

Never have, never will. Initech May 2012 #43

religious belief does not require coherent thought RainDog May 2012 #44

Because it would create more married couples, requiring more married benefits? haele May 2012 #48

You ask the best questions, Don. n/t EFerrari May 2012 #55