7
   

Applying the definition of marriage to real life application.

Forums: Usian Politics, Equality, Relationships, Bigot Love Fest, Gay Rights
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Val Killmore
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:20 pm
@joefromchicago,
Not from my perspective.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:20 pm
@Val Killmore,
Quote:
It's not whatever I think it is.
It's what family means to everyone.

Really? What is that definition that everyone accepts?

You have already rejected a definition and made up your own with some idiotic idea that "clear" means a father has more power than an uncle. Does a father have more power than a child? Does a father have more power than a husband? Does a husband have more power than a child? There is nothing "clear" about your statement. It's simply an idea you made up and now think is "clear" to everyone. That shows your inability to think clearly.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:22 pm
@Val Killmore,
Val Killmore wrote:
So I thought of marriage and what it leads: family.


Marriage is about money and control. Economics. Finance. Estate-planning. End-of-Life decisions. Heirs. Inheritance. That's what it was about historically and what it is now.

Family can be a nice side-effect.


~~~


Your understanding of the history of same-sex marriage seems to start and stop within the last hundred years or so, and to be focused on the U.S. I'd recommend broadening your research in this area.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:24 pm
@Val Killmore,
Val Killmore wrote:

It's what family means to everyone.


you don't have agreement on this point
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:24 pm
@Val Killmore,
You still have not answered the question I asked. Marriage is a contract that gives the participants certain rights by the state because the state now sees the married people as a family. Many of those rights exist between parent/child and brother/sister.

Incest couples even if not married would have rights that are denied to gay couples. Until you address this, your argument fails as the slippery slope it is.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:24 pm
@Val Killmore,
Val Killmore wrote:
Family and marriage is intertwined, even if the couple doesn't have kids, thus potential is also a keyword.


there has to be potential for children?
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:25 pm
@Val Killmore,
Val Killmore wrote:
I can't comprehend such a relationship.


so?
0 Replies
 
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:26 pm
@parados,
So you're saying in a normal family, there is not a difference in power.

I don't know what kind of family you were raised in, but when I was a wee little lad, it's either listen to the parents and no back talk, no discussions on an order, or else it's working in the farm with no lunch or dinner.
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:28 pm
@ehBeth,
Potential in the sense that if there is a child, there will be clear power differential.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:28 pm
@Val Killmore,
That makes absolutely no sense, but I guess we're back at the original post in that way.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:31 pm
@Val Killmore,
Are you now arguing that children should be allowed to marry? That would not be allowed under any bill that allows gay marriage.
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:33 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Incest couples even if not married would have rights that are denied to gay couples. Until you address this, your argument fails as the slippery slope it is.


The definition allows for gay marriage, and may allow for second cousins to marry, and maybe first cousins, due to the clarity of distinction of family members when moving away from sibling to first cousin. Lawyers can make it somehow work.
If gay marriage is legalized, they have the same rights as a normal heterosexual marriage. As it so in some states, and spreading.
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:35 pm
@parados,
Quote:
A union of love between two consenting adults that has the potential for a family with a clear power differentiating structure.


parados wrote:
Are you now arguing that children should be allowed to marry?


That answers your question.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:38 pm
@Val Killmore,
LOL...
So you are just going to pretend that your definition is accepted? That's complete nonsense from you Val.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:39 pm
@Val Killmore,
Val Killmore wrote:

Quote:
A union of love between two consenting adults that has the potential for a family with a clear power differentiating structure.


parados wrote:
Are you now arguing that children should be allowed to marry?


That answers your question.

And yet, the ONLY way you can define "power" is by parent/minor child. There is a problem with your definition Val. It doesn't make sense.
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:40 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
Marriage is about money and control. Economics. Finance. Estate-planning. End-of-Life decisions. Heirs. Inheritance. That's what it was about historically and what it is now.



So a couple who can't have kids and won't adopt is not really married?
Heterosexual couples who can't have natural progeny is not really married?

So I think the historic context of marriage has changed within this previous decade.
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:42 pm
@parados,
Not pretending to accept, but I think that is what people think of in their head when they think about marriage, although I don't know why they are not expressing it in words.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:43 pm
@Val Killmore,
You can't even follow your own argument it seems.
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:47 pm
@parados,
Answer this.
In a normal family, is there a clear difference in power between the kids and parents?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2012 12:47 pm
@Val Killmore,
Val Killmore wrote:
So a couple who can't have kids and won't adopt is not really married?
Heterosexual couples who can't have natural progeny is not really married?

So I think the historic context of marriage has changed within this previous decade.


traditionally, women had to prove their fertility prior to marriage. There was no point in marrying a woman who couldn't provide an heir.

The definition of marriage has been a moving target for several hundred years, not just a decade.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Democrats Have Their History Wrong — and Are About to Make a Grievous Mistake - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
The ERA: good for men, good for women, bad for feminists. - Discussion by maxdancona
If Hillary was Thinking about 16 She Should Quit IT - Discussion by hawkeye10
Benghazi Boogaloo - Discussion by Finn dAbuzz
2020 not so far away - Discussion by ehBeth
Democratic National Convention Autopsy - Discussion by giujohn
Disney Threatens to Boycott Georgia Over Anti-Gay Bill - Discussion by tsarstepan
Why hasn't Hillary gotten back to the mother of Benghazi victim - Question by cicerone imposter
No HSA plans offered for Bronze level ACA plans ?????? - Question by ddbell
MoveOn.org Vows to Withhold Dem Donations Because Schumer Acting Too Lieberman - Question by korkamann
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Applying the definition of marriage to real life application.
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 08:53:46
▲ ▼