|
Any two people should be able to legally marry. |
18
|
 
60
% |
|
Only hetero marriage, but civil unions for gays. |
5
|
 
16
% |
|
Only hetero marriage, no civil unions recognized. |
3
|
 
10
% |
|
Anyone should be able to marriage anyone... |
0
|
 
0
% |
|
#4 CONT: ...regardless of sex or # of partners. |
4
|
 
13
% |
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion

Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006 Posts: 3,487 Points: 1,990 Location: Undisclosed Location
|
BadHorsie wrote:
endyss wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:Practicality comes to mind. Imagine the court room fiascos for divorces involving multiple partners.. What if you flip it around? Rather than a matter of "should we allow more than two people to marry," what about "by what right does the government restrict those people's right to marry"? Is courtroom fiasco a sufficient reason?
Again, having the country built on the Bible to an extent (one nation under "God" and all that), marriage is defined a between "a" man and "a" woman, "a" meaning one.
Except that "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's and has no legal standing. In theory at least the US is a secular nation. The idea that it is built on the Christian bible is a mythology constructed for political purposes by theocrats. Additionally, the bible is full of polygamy so if it were true that the US was "built on the Bible" that actually only furthers the argument that marriages involving more than two people should not be prohibited. Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.  
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!

Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008 Posts: 658 Points: 81 Location: SoCal
|
endyss wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:Practicality comes to mind. Imagine the court room fiascos for divorces involving multiple partners.. What if you flip it around? Rather than a matter of "should we allow more than two people to marry," what about "by what right does the government restrict those people's right to marry"? Is courtroom fiasco a sufficient reason? None, as far as the Constitution is concerned. Federal involvement, however, may be inevitable given the problems and disputes that are drawn up between states when it comes to recognition, but the power of marriage has and remains a "state" issue...I believe. But so long as the will of the people remains docile in regards to marriage being more than just between a man and a woman, you're not going to see a change in the practice.
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician

Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006 Posts: 3,948 Points: 3,636 Location: Hi-Five City
|
I honestly don't care if a guy marries another guy, or 10 women, or 10 women and 10 guys, or a snake. The fact that the government can step in and tell who who you can and can't marry is baffling to me.
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!

Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, WDFNews.com Official Mapper
Joined: 5/10/2006 Posts: 666 Points: 54 Location: Mapping hell
|
HeXploiT wrote:Marriage should be a religious issue not a state issue.
yes Yes its time again to Play WTF did Murdy Just type Robot Hell is real and i cant spell yes im dyslexic WDF? wrote:lol fuck you, Murdy. BadHorsie wrote: I love it!
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!

Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 12/22/2007 Posts: 507 Points: 519 Location: in a pathetic world of fleshies
|
Murdy wrote:
HeXploiT wrote:Marriage should be a religious issue not a state issue.
yes
Then what about those of us who are not religious nor want to be? don't we have the right to get married as well? personally i feel marriage is a social and economic institution as well as spiritual. limiting it to just the spiritual seems a bit shortsighted and naive. how about instead of judges or priests, we jsut go with the old tradition of having captains of ships marry people? Bah Weep Granah Weep Ninny Bong
This is the Narwhal. Denne er narkval Hvor er narkval? Where is the narwhal? Lykkkelig liten narkval! Happy Little narwal!
This has been Conversational Norwegian with Freakazoid.
|
|
|
Rank: Administration

Groups: Administration, Newsie, Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 11/6/2007 Posts: 987 Points: 783
|
Blahooligan wrote:Murdy wrote:
HeXploiT wrote:Marriage should be a religious issue not a state issue.
yes
Then what about those of us who are not religious nor want to be? don't we have the right to get married as well? personally i feel marriage is a social and economic institution as well as spiritual. limiting it to just the spiritual seems a bit shortsighted and naive. how about instead of judges or priests, we jsut go with the old tradition of having captains of ships marry people?
I'd direct you back to my solution to the debate.
It seems to address most of the questions and concerns people have expressed, yet the poll only shows 4 votes for it! HolyJaw wrote:In the end, everything Endyss said.
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!

Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 1/13/2008 Posts: 1,509 Points: 2,004
|
That is an elementary solution to your question. Oh lets just marry as many whatever's that we want! Nobody can tell me what is good for me. Wrong. Governments are in place, in part, to protect thier citizens...even from themselves. Save your big brother or police state breath.I can already feel the heat approaching from persons IMMEDIATLY looking at the extremes...
Now that we are calm. There is an underlying reason for why most cultures have not adopted a polygamist lifestyle...do you think that religion or cultures just teach this stuff because they thought up a bunch of rules in the beginning? Is is chance that decided that most peoples favor a monogomist lifestyle. I think not.
No....cultures are not created by a civic methodology. By that I mean...they don't all sit down and decide how they are going to handle situation x and y all at the beginning. They are formed by Common methodology. How does that figure into anything? Lets take a few basic observances that over hundreds of years, I believe, convinced most peoples on the earth that polygamy is not in thier best interest.
1. Increased occurances of inbreeding and the resultant weaking of offspring over generations.
2. Competition for resources: its a hell of a lot harder to provide for a very large families when food/water becomes scarce.
3. Competition for Sex: and the general chaos that would result from matriachal or patriarchal successions. without going on too much longer....Social groups might experience more in-fighting, offspring murder, and all that nasty stuff...and basically not be again, as competitive as another group who dont have those issues.
4. its just a big pain in the ass to take care of lots of women, or lots of men all vying for your attention.
5. There is no benefit to the group to have part of their society mating with dogs or snakes or same sex couples (ie. the reason gays have gotten the shit end of the stick for the last 10000 years or whatever.)
Modern governments are just putting these same ideas into codefied laws to prevent the same bad stuff from happening. Its driven from the bottom up. They are protecting us from outcomes difficult to see from the individuals perspective. The same can be argued about drug control. People who believe that unmitigated use of drugs is a good thing need to take a look at the effect widespread drug use can have on the efficacy of a population. Ill give you an example to start: China and opium. Quote:
"Who the fuck is Leon Switch and why does he know we have a dog?" - Mrs. Giller
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician

Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006 Posts: 3,948 Points: 3,636 Location: Hi-Five City
|
Actually, one of the reasons Asians have done so well in this country is because Asian families typically care a lot more for eachother and live together, making bills and such a lot easier to pay for. (By the way, this is also why Japan has such an amazing economy. No Social Security, because the elderly japanese are usually taken care of by their offspring. American rugged individualism is a double-edged sword, don't forget that.) So that basically takes care of point number two. All of the rest of your points are absolutely irrelevant. If someone makes a choice they have to accept all of the merits and faults of that choice. If the end up fucking themselves over it's their own fault, and no other force may justifiably inhibit that choice. If you're not willing to accept the concept of self-ownership than you really have no place arguing against it, because that's what this argument is about.
|
|
|
Rank: You're gonna stick that where?

Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 5/7/2008 Posts: 254 Points: 12 Location: Alaska
|
Blahooligan wrote:Murdy wrote:
HeXploiT wrote:Marriage should be a religious issue not a state issue.
yes
Then what about those of us who are not religious nor want to be? don't we have the right to get married as well? personally i feel marriage is a social and economic institution as well as spiritual. limiting it to just the spiritual seems a bit shortsighted and naive. how about instead of judges or priests, we jsut go with the old tradition of having captains of ships marry people? Then have your mother marry you. Why does the state have to get involved to tell you what you can and cannot do?
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!

Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 1/13/2008 Posts: 1,509 Points: 2,004
|
Lead Salad wrote:Actually, one of the reasons Asians have done so well in this country is because Asian families typically care a lot more for eachother and live together, making bills and such a lot easier to pay for. (By the way, this is also why Japan has such an amazing economy. No Social Security, because the elderly japanese are usually taken care of by their offspring. American rugged individualism is a double-edged sword, don't forget that.) So that basically takes care of point number two. All of the rest of your points are absolutely irrelevant. If someone makes a choice they have to accept all of the merits and faults of that choice. If the end up fucking themselves over it's their own fault, and no other force may justifiably inhibit that choice. If you're not willing to accept the concept of self-ownership than you really have no place arguing against it, because that's what this argument is about.
Lead....you completely do not understand any of my arguements. You missed the entire point of the post! *Sigh* its so bad that i really don't know how to respond. Please tell me there is somebody otu there who Grasps the basic anthropological ideas I just outlined. Lead I will explain the idea behind what i meant in a PM or something.
No wait...i will title the post: Why Polygamy is not favorable for long term success of a population, the historical communication of that idea, and why modern governments enact legislation against it. Quote:
"Who the fuck is Leon Switch and why does he know we have a dog?" - Mrs. Giller
|
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion

Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006 Posts: 3,487 Points: 1,990 Location: Undisclosed Location
|
Giller [GwDR wrote:]
That is an elementary solution to your question. Oh lets just marry as many whatever's that we want! Nobody can tell me what is good for me. Wrong. Governments are in place, in part, to protect thier citizens...even from themselves. Save your big brother or police state breath.I can already feel the heat approaching from persons IMMEDIATLY looking at the extremes...
Now that we are calm. There is an underlying reason for why most cultures have not adopted a polygamist lifestyle...do you think that religion or cultures just teach this stuff because they thought up a bunch of rules in the beginning? Is is chance that decided that most peoples favor a monogomist lifestyle. I think not.
No....cultures are not created by a civic methodology. By that I mean...they don't all sit down and decide how they are going to handle situation x and y all at the beginning. They are formed by Common methodology. How does that figure into anything? Lets take a few basic observances that over hundreds of years, I believe, convinced most peoples on the earth that polygamy is not in thier best interest.
1. Increased occurances of inbreeding and the resultant weaking of offspring over generations.
2. Competition for resources: its a hell of a lot harder to provide for a very large families when food/water becomes scarce.
3. Competition for Sex: and the general chaos that would result from matriachal or patriarchal successions. without going on too much longer....Social groups might experience more in-fighting, offspring murder, and all that nasty stuff...and basically not be again, as competitive as another group who dont have those issues.
4. its just a big pain in the ass to take care of lots of women, or lots of men all vying for your attention.
5. There is no benefit to the group to have part of their society mating with dogs or snakes or same sex couples (ie. the reason gays have gotten the shit end of the stick for the last 10000 years or whatever.)
Modern governments are just putting these same ideas into codefied laws to prevent the same bad stuff from happening. Its driven from the bottom up. They are protecting us from outcomes difficult to see from the individuals perspective. The same can be argued about drug control. People who believe that unmitigated use of drugs is a good thing need to take a look at the effect widespread drug use can have on the efficacy of a population. Ill give you an example to start: China and opium.
1) Animals lack marriage. Most of them don't even really do the kind of pair-bonding our species does. Many animals are polyamorous. Inbreeding is not a problem except in small isolated cases. In humans most inbreeding occurs in normal families as a form of sexual abuse, it's incredibly unlikely that more than a handful of close relatives would want to get married and as it is now the legal prohibition on it is not likely to stop them from engaging in sex. Additionally, the risks of inbreeding are largely urban legend - it's rare that a first generation product of inbreeding will have genetic defects but that is somewhat beside the point. 2) Procreation and marriage are two distinct things. As it is now people can mass breed if they choose to. Whether their relationship is recognized as marriage is unrelated. 3) I don't understand this point. 4) I agree, but this isn't really an argument for prohibition so much as its an argument for why doing this is probably not very enjoyable. 5) I don't understand this point either. Re: Your argument about government, what you are in effect saying is that cultural mores should be imposed on society via the law. In my book that is not freedom. Individuals should have the right to throw off the shackles of cultural hegemony if they choose without legal consequence. They may face social consequences and be ostracized or whatever, but using the law to impose cultural values is totalitarianism. Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.  
|
|
|
Rank: You're gonna stick that where?

Groups: Registered User
Joined: 5/17/2006 Posts: 363 Points: 0 Location: San Jose, CA
|
Giller [GwDR wrote:]So is the biggest issue to you the parent-child relationships that might form? Because if we are bestowing the same priviledges upon them with either contract, Marraige or "civil union" the only real difference between the words is the number of syllables. Marriage is federally protected and must be recognized regardless of differences in state law. Civil unions are not, and wouldn't be.
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!

Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 1/13/2008 Posts: 1,509 Points: 2,004
|
Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:Giller [GwDR wrote:]
That is an elementary solution to your question. Oh lets just marry as many whatever's that we want! Nobody can tell me what is good for me. Wrong. Governments are in place, in part, to protect thier citizens...even from themselves. Save your big brother or police state breath.I can already feel the heat approaching from persons IMMEDIATLY looking at the extremes...
Now that we are calm. There is an underlying reason for why most cultures have not adopted a polygamist lifestyle...do you think that religion or cultures just teach this stuff because they thought up a bunch of rules in the beginning? Is is chance that decided that most peoples favor a monogomist lifestyle. I think not.
No....cultures are not created by a civic methodology. By that I mean...they don't all sit down and decide how they are going to handle situation x and y all at the beginning. They are formed by Common methodology. How does that figure into anything? Lets take a few basic observances that over hundreds of years, I believe, convinced most peoples on the earth that polygamy is not in thier best interest.
1. Increased occurances of inbreeding and the resultant weaking of offspring over generations.
2. Competition for resources: its a hell of a lot harder to provide for a very large families when food/water becomes scarce.
3. Competition for Sex: and the general chaos that would result from matriachal or patriarchal successions. without going on too much longer....Social groups might experience more in-fighting, offspring murder, and all that nasty stuff...and basically not be again, as competitive as another group who dont have those issues.
4. its just a big pain in the ass to take care of lots of women, or lots of men all vying for your attention.
5. There is no benefit to the group to have part of their society mating with dogs or snakes or same sex couples (ie. the reason gays have gotten the shit end of the stick for the last 10000 years or whatever.)
Modern governments are just putting these same ideas into codefied laws to prevent the same bad stuff from happening. Its driven from the bottom up. They are protecting us from outcomes difficult to see from the individuals perspective. The same can be argued about drug control. People who believe that unmitigated use of drugs is a good thing need to take a look at the effect widespread drug use can have on the efficacy of a population. Ill give you an example to start: China and opium.
1) Animals lack marriage. Most of them don't even really do the kind of pair-bonding our species does. Many animals are polyamorous. Inbreeding is not a problem except in small isolated cases. In humans most inbreeding occurs in normal families as a form of sexual abuse, it's incredibly unlikely that more than a handful of close relatives would want to get married and as it is now the legal prohibition on it is not likely to stop them from engaging in sex. Additionally, the risks of inbreeding are largely urban legend - it's rare that a first generation product of inbreeding will have genetic defects but that is somewhat beside the point. 2) Procreation and marriage are two distinct things. As it is now people can mass breed if they choose to. Whether their relationship is recognized as marriage is unrelated. - 3) I don't understand this point. 4) I agree, but this isn't really an argument for prohibition so much as its an argument for why doing this is probably not very enjoyable. 5) I don't understand this point either. Re: Your argument about government, what you are in effect saying is that cultural mores should be imposed on society via the law. In my book that is not freedom. Individuals should have the right to throw off the shackles of cultural hegemony if they choose without legal consequence. They may face social consequences and be ostracized or whatever, but using the law to impose cultural values is totalitarianism.
I am not making an arguement for what is marriage and what isn't I am simply outlining the historical reasons people did not create Polygamist groups. You are making a common assumption and are applying the 20-21st century Western assumptions of Abundant food, huge local populations, perfectly mobile society, people operating under advance social structures, and short time spans and that's why you dont understand. The truth is Dick, I really dont think you could handle 6 pregnant women at the same time , during the winter.....2000 years ago. And to prevent you from becoming a burden on the community...I for one am going to step in and say. No you only get one wife.
I am trying to attach the reasons why these ideas and social structures were built over Thousands of years...and why they persist in modern governments. You cannot separate lessons ingrained in human communities over thousands of years just because conditions changed in the last 100.
1. Quote:
"Who the fuck is Leon Switch and why does he know we have a dog?" - Mrs. Giller
|
|
|
Rank: Administration

Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008 Posts: 1,793 Points: 3,380 Location: Arizona
|
One of the arguments suggested is that "marriage" should be separated between a government piece and non-government piece. In many ways it already is. Homosexuals can get married in any state outside of the law; it just comes down to someone declaring them such that they feel is in a position to do so with meaning. So the problem is strictly with the government piece. Personally I don't think the government has any business using the word "marriage", because the fundamental meaning of that word transcends any government; it's something defined by religions and traditions older than most current governments in the world. The only piece of it the government has a say in is how it affects peoples' tax status, visitation rights, inheritance, etc. - things that have nothing to do with the love and commitment which forms the basis of what "marriage" is. And you don't need "marriage" to establish those things. That said, I support civil unions as the government's "piece" of it all. At least at a high level. I'd further break it down into two things: "Social Union" - Unlimited pairings, used to establish hospital visitation rights and other relevant aspects "Civil Union" - Between two people, used to establish tax status, inheritance and other relevant aspects (implies Social Union as well) Fact is there are some things that exist today that are based on two-person pairings which just wouldn't be feasible with more than two, or with cross-pairings. Separating them out would make it much more viable to have both where appropriate.
|
|
|
Rank: Administration

Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008 Posts: 1,793 Points: 3,380 Location: Arizona
|
Blahooligan wrote:Murdy wrote:
HeXploiT wrote:Marriage should be a religious issue not a state issue.
yes
Then what about those of us who are not religious nor want to be? don't we have the right to get married as well? personally i feel marriage is a social and economic institution as well as spiritual. limiting it to just the spiritual seems a bit shortsighted and naive. It's best to view it as a "state issue" and "non-state issue". Or more generally, yes... "state" and "social", in which many things can fit under the "social" umbrella. My wife and I got married by a non-denominational officiant for the same fundamental reasons religious people would wed, but minus any specific religion. And after we got married we signed a license that was later validated so the government would see us as "married". Logically speaking this entire thread isn't even about "marriage". It's about who can sign that license.
|
|
|
| Users browsing this topic |
|
Guest
|