Is this some kind of trap question?

You said marriage is meaningless. It clearly isn't. What's your point?

Quote:

---

I mean sex between a man and a woman that inherently has the potential to create life and turn the man and woman into mom and dad. Nothing else required but now there is a new life and a new obligation for both

---

All of this is true regardless of whether they're married at the time of conception or anytime after. People always think of custody fights being tied to divorce proceedings but we have a parallel system for adjudicating custody issues for unmarried parents that gets just as much, if not more, use than the divorce stuff.

To be honest, I don't expect you or Seamaster to defend the claim that "marriage is meaningless" because it obviously isn't. You're still married (I assume). You're not going to get divorced because it's become meaningless due to gay marriage or whatever. And you're likely going to ghost this thread to avoid admitting it or just bring up anything else to avoid having to defend such a nonsensical statement.

There's probably a good conversation to be had here about marriage, but as long as people avoid defending their claims and not admitting when they say something absurd, that conversation isn't going to happen. There's no reason to address a different argument when you're unwilling to defend your own.

Marriage isn't meaningless. It hasn't become meaningless because of gay marriage. I still find meaning in mine. I still find meaning in the legal benefits. So do you. So let's stop the whole act.

Quote:

---

Why is it not legal for you to live with a female without a marriage license overseas? Could two men live together, or two women, without being required to have a marriage license? Why do they look at a male/female couple with different standards than a same-sex couple?

---

I'm assuming this is what you are asking about as a "trap" question?

My question is more about why do they care if you and your female companion are married or not in the ME. Would the same requirements apply if you were traveling with someone of the same sex? In 20-30 years when marriage can mean literally anything or any arrangement of consenting adults what would your marriage license say or mean?

Contract law can handle any and every scenario involving consenting adults, with the one exception of natural reproduction.

Honestly, ask them. There's lots of reasons. I don't feel obligated to defend their laws but I do feel obligated to comply to avoid the consequences. I was already married so compliance was easy.

No, you don't have to be married to live with someone of the same sex. You can live and travel with a person of the opposite sex who is a family member. These laws are rarely enforced for foreigners, but it does matter for residency and other legal matters. Some countries laws over here are more strict and they strictly enforce. Some don't.

In 20 or 30 years my marriage license would mean that we are legally married in the United States. And that legal marriage would be recognized here. And it would mean that I could get residency and travel without fear of being arrested. By definition, it won't "mean anything" and it will not be meaningless.

I'm not ghosting the thread. I absolutely believe marriage has meaning...it certainly does for me. What I am saying when I say marriage has become meaningless is that if marriage can mean anything marriage means nothing. I am not talking about your specific marriage or mine. I am talking about marriage in general as it relates to society.

When you remove the male/female requirement of marriage there is simply no binding principle to limit marriage in any form or fashion. You could have 7 men, 5 women, 3 siblings, or insert whatever you want all "married" to each other. Is my example extreme? Maybe. But a few years ago when I made the same points people said I was crazy to think we would go down this slippery slope....back then I was just talking about a throuple (3 people married to each other).

So your marriage has meaning, and my marriage has meaning, both personally and for public benefits, but it's also "meaningless as it relates to society"?

This doesn't make any sense.

Polygamy and all sorts of other arrangements already exist. They've existed for millennia. They exist right now in the US. They exist over here. It existed in the Bible.

It's still meaningful.

The one man one woman or meaningless has never been true.

Beer Baron said:

---

Quote:

---

I mean sex between a man and a woman that inherently has the potential to create life and turn the man and woman into mom and dad. Nothing else required but now there is a new life and a new obligation for both

---

All of this is true regardless of whether they're married at the time of conception or anytime after. People always think of custody fights being tied to divorce proceedings but we have a parallel system for adjudicating custody issues for unmarried parents that gets just as much, if not more, use than the divorce stuff.

---

Which is why the institution of marriage, and the government's interest in marriage, exists. Marriage is fundamentally about the potential or actual children produced within it. The custody battles and what you are talking about would ideally be completely avoided as a result of marriage. Obviously this is not the case, but the hope would be these issues would be drastically fewer to deal with.

craigernaught said:

---

So your marriage has meaning, and my marriage has meaning, both personally and for public benefits, but it's also "meaningless as it relates to society"?

This doesn't make any sense.

---

I can't speak for your marriage, but my marriage (and marriages like mine) are quickly becoming the needle in a haystack of society. This will in time have devastating effects to the society at large. We are seeing that play out in the streets today

Edit to add: I am not saying same-sex marriage is why we are where we are today. The breakdown of the marriage institution has been going on for decades and decades prior.

Quote:

---

The custody battles and what you are talking about would ideally be completely avoided as a result of marriage. Obviously this is not the case, but the hope would be these issues would be drastically fewer to deal with.

---

This is the only part of your post that makes any sense whatsoever. It's why even in god-fearing states like Texas we have extensive statutes and case law explicitly defining how these disputes will get sorted out. Essentially you're holding gay/poly/whatever relationships up against an ideal marriage standard that even vanilla M/F relationships can't and never have lived up to.

Okay...perhaps a better way to state it is that marriage has less meaning today (kind of like a seedless watermelon- it still has seeds).

However, in time marriage will take on so many shapes, sizes, and configurations that the word will have no definitional or societal meaning other than the tax benefits it provides....even the health benefits and power of attorney will have complicated layers as a result. My underlying point is that once the male/female requirement has been removed there is simply no principle remaining for marriage and marriage becomes only a contract between consenting adults. Anyone can call their relationship a marriage, but that does not in fact make it a marriage unless you completely change the definition and meaning of marriage.

this just sounds like fantasy "worst-case scenario" imagery to justify not liking something so that it doesn't just come across as a subjective opinion.

What I am saying is if the male/female aspect is irrelevant than so is the limitation on the number of people that can be married to each other.

What you are left with is endless possibilities for what a marriage is. What we are left with is just different types of contract laws that consenting adults create and enter into.

Faithful Ag said:

---

However, in time marriage will take on so many shapes, sizes, and configurations that the word will have no definitional or societal meaning other than the tax benefits it provides....even the health benefits and power of attorney will have complicated layers as a result.

---

This exists now, and has for a long time. The word marriage probably has a slightly different meaning to every person that is married. That meaning can even change over time. I know it has for me.
People get married for all kinds of reasons, and always have. Whether it's because they got pregnant, or their parents made them, or they fell in love, or they want to have sex, or they want to share benefits, or a widow who legally had to marry her brother-in-law, or a rapist and his victim, or a slave who belongs to a woman that got married and is now legally married to the man, or a prisoner of war, or multiple people wanting to share their lives together. Every single one of those and more has a different size shape and configuration. None of those long existing marriages has ever had any impact on the meaning of any one else's marriage.

At the end of the day the meaning of the marriage will be whatever meaning the participants assign it. It will be about the promises they made on their wedding day in front of witnesses. The promises they make every day to their spouse(s). And it will be about the legal implications of entering into a marriage assigned by the government.

Correct. None of that makes any of them "meaningless," no matter how much you want that to be the case.

Beer Baron said:

---

Correct. None of that makes any of them "meaningless," no matter how much you want that to be the case.

---

You guys keep holding onto and highlighting the fact that I used the word "meaningless" and then are claiming I am saying marriages now have no meaning. That is not what I am saying. The relationship still has meaning. The word marriage today does not hold the same meaning as it did before.

Until very recent times one could say that they were married and that was all they needed to say. No more information needed. In today's world if someone says they are married it means they have a life-long partner they have committed themselves to, either complementary sex or same sex. A little more information is needed now which is a shift or change in the meaning rendering the former meaning no longer sufficient. In the future when someone says they are married it will literally mean whatever they want it to mean...which means marriage no longer has a specific meaning - which is already the case today and will continue to expand.

Also, marriage until very recently has universally consisted of complimentary sexes. There have always been same-sex relationships, unfaithful people, promiscuity, polyamory, prostitution, etc - but none of these have ever been held as marriages...until today.

I can see that some of you are not interested in seeing the flip side and that in your mind marriage is really only about what consenting adults want and the tax/legal benefits they can exploit as a result.

My view is that in EVERY consenting adult relationship (of any configuration imaginable) the tax/legal benefits and ramifications could be set forth at the time of entering the contract. All factors of the the relationship are static (unchanging) and could be decided at that moment of entering the contract. All parties would have to agree on future additions or changes (children, new spouses, etc) prior to those becoming binding on the parties.

In a marriage between a man and a woman you do not have the same level of decision making control. Obligations and additions can and do change and happen naturally. The relationships are therefore inherently different. Not better, just different.

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

The word marriage today does not hold the same meaning as it did before.

---

Not holding the "same meaning" is not remotely the same as being "meaningless". It's just defined differently by the state. Faith traditions can define it in accordance with their faith traditions. Just as the state can define it in accordance with its secular principles, especially given the fact that the state should not be free to discriminate.

---

So what role should the state have in marriage according to its secular principles. What are those principles?



eta: this was the sentence prior to your snip..."The relationship still has meaning. The word marriage today does not hold the same meaning as it did before. ".

Faithful Ag said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

The word marriage today does not hold the same meaning as it did before.

---

Not holding the "same meaning" is not remotely the same as being "meaningless". It's just defined differently by the state. Faith traditions can define it in accordance with their faith traditions. Just as the state can define it in accordance with its secular principles, especially given the fact that the state should not be free to discriminate.

---

So what role should the state have in marriage according to its secular principles. What are those principles?

---

I personally think zero. I think the state should recognize civil unions. Marriage is a religious covenant between a man and woman.

Faithful Ag said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

The word marriage today does not hold the same meaning as it did before.

---

Not holding the "same meaning" is not remotely the same as being "meaningless". It's just defined differently by the state. Faith traditions can define it in accordance with their faith traditions. Just as the state can define it in accordance with its secular principles, especially given the fact that the state should not be free to discriminate.

---

So what role should the state have in marriage according to its secular principles. What are those principles?



eta: this was the sentence prior to your snip..."The relationship still has meaning. The word marriage today does not hold the same meaning as it did before. ".

---

That's already been covered as to the state involvement in marriage. The point is that not everyone is going to define marriage the same. Faith traditions vary. They may change through time within the same tradition. The same applies to the state. Just because they define it differently, doesn't mean it is meaningless. Different meaning =/= meaningless.

My point is the only legitimate interest the state should have in marriage has to do with the potential children. I do believe there is a legitimate interest for society for this reason.

Otherwise, I am with derm doc in that civil unions for all would be the way to go, which is effectively what we are getting - just redefining and remaking what defines a marriage in the process. The issue that is now on the horizon is or will be if 2 men can get married why not 3? How about a brother and a sister who want the tax advantages? What was a useful institution is now being reduced to just a tax shelter and legal organizational structure.

My point was more that the type of marriage you are defining as having meaning has only existed in certain parts of the world for a few thousand years. There has never been a universal definition of what consists of a marriage. If you went back in time a couple thousand years ago and introduced your wife they'd probably assume you bought her from her dad.

Quad Dog said:

---

My point was more that the type of marriage you are defining as having meaning has only existed in certain parts of the world for a few thousand years. There has never been a universal definition of what consists of a marriage. If you went back in time a couple thousand years ago and introduced your wife they'd probably assume you bought her from her dad.

---

the best 4 goats and a chicken i ever spent.

The point I was making in marriage historically is that it has never before been associated or used to describe a same-sex relationship. Marriage was uniquely male and female.

If that's true, why did Leviticus have to prohibit it? You don't have to prohibit something that doesn't exist. Same sex marriage has existed many times in the past, especially in Roman culture.

Quad Dog said:

---

If that's true, why did Leviticus have to prohibit it? You don't have to prohibit something that doesn't exist. Same sex marriage has existed many times in the past, especially in Roman culture.

---

Can you quote for me where in Leviticus same-sex marriage is prohibited?

Faithful Ag said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

If that's true, why did Leviticus have to prohibit it? You don't have to prohibit something that doesn't exist. Same sex marriage has existed many times in the past, especially in Roman culture.

---

Can you quote for me where in Leviticus same-sex marriage is prohibited?

---

Fair enough, I guess Leviticus just focuses on sexual acts and not marriage. Even though everyone uses those verses to justify hatred of homosexual marriage. I guess I just associated marriage with the verses too. Either way homosexuals have been having some form of marriage for a very long time.

Quad Dog said:

---

Fair enough, I guess Leviticus just focuses on sexual acts and not marriage. Even though everyone uses those verses to justify hatred of homosexual marriage. I guess I just associated marriage with the verses too. Either way homosexuals have been having some form of marriage for a very long time.

---

Some form of relationship...yes. Always have and always will.

Some form of marriage....only very recently and requiring the creation of an entirely new definition for marriage.

Now we live in a world where you cannot call someone a he or a she without permission first in case you misidentify their pronoun. If we keep redefining terms and ignore the ramifications on society we will just get more of the same. But speaking truth is no longer accepted and must be shouted down. It's a brave new world and 1984 all wrapped up into one.

Faithful Ag said:

---

The point I was making in marriage historically is that it has never before been associated or used to describe a same-sex relationship. Marriage was uniquely male and female.

---

I don't think this is true, because I've read before there was marriage between same sex partners in ancient Mesopotamia.

Quote:

---

Now we live in a world where you cannot call someone a he or a she without permission first in case you misidentify their pronoun.

---

No we don't. Now can you be fired for creating a hostile working environment by violating company policy and purposely misgendering someone? Sure. But it's because it's violating company policy and creating a hostile working environment.