Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal On Lawn's Journal: Survey: What do people want with marriage anyway? (extd) 120

Journal by On Lawn

Thank you in advance for participating in this loosley formated survey where it is hoped the most noble values expressed wins, not plurality. The phraseology was too big for the subject line so here is the real question in full.

Question: What more is marriage to you than is covered in this definition of domestic partnership?

A few guidelines:

In fairness, defenders of marriage and same sex marriage advocates alike should answer the question.

Please keep criticism of others' answers to yourself. Focus on publicly expressing your values while you keep private the judgements you make on what others have shared. "Me too, I like that" is a welcome response. "That is crap becuase I believe..." is not. If you don't have anything positive to say, well you know the rest. Plenty of places to beat each other up, lets keep this one blood free.

Also, I'm sure we can all agree that the definition enumerated by the ACLU is common among DP's Civil Unions and Marriages. So please leave items that are already covered by the ACLU to yourself, confident that we all share and understand them already. If someone shares something you feel is covered in DP's feel free to politely point that out to them and ask if there is something they meant to say that DP's do not cover.

And I assure you that if you answer the poll question properly there will be no reason you need to say, "they have it so we should to" or "why not". While it is true that the ideal of equality has great value, it does not display the personal value in marriage that this poll searches for. So if you feel the need to argue for something becuase "they have it to" or "why not", do so by simply stating the value you see in what "they" have. As you do you will find that you will be making a far more powerful claim on marriage.

Thank you again for reading this and participating. I especially look forward to hearing from the lurkers so we can have a database that represents more than just the passionate extremes. It is only through multiple data points that we can draw a trend. Its only with multiple ideas that we can compare values and find just what definition of marriage is worth state recognition (if any).

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Survey: What do people want with marriage anyway? (extd) More

Survey: What do people want with marriage anyway? (extd)

Comments Filter:
  • We got married to received the benefit of two things: the "marriage" part and the "civil union" part. The former encompasses commitment between myself and my SO: Physical, Spiritual, and Emotional. The latter includes the joint checking account, taxes, possession commingling, etc.
    • We got married to received the benefit of two things: the "marriage" part and the "civil union" part.

      Interesting breakdown. I probably should have used "civil union" instead of DP as my common basis, just to keep things up to date. But I couldn't find a really good definition of civil union out there. Not nearly as succint as this.

      The former encompasses commitment between myself and my SO: Physical, Spiritual, and Emotional.

      Now that sounds like what I'm looking for. When I answer the question I mentio

    • I believe Safety Cap's observations are really critical regarding the definition of "marriage" and "civil union."

      When I was at University, I lived with a very good friend for 3 years; we shared food expenses, rent expenses, utility bills, agreed not to have other roomates without permission, etc. In many ways I think this is akin to a civil union; it's more or less a business relationship between good friends.

      I now have a similar living and financial situation with my wife; however the very nature of the

      • Marriage is beyond what can be defined by a bulleted list in a legal document, but rather is a spiritual connection with another person.

        This is interesting, and I hope you can help me out here. Is there anything in particular that you find distinctive in spiritual connections with another person to marriage? I realize the spiritual plane is rather ethereal, but I'd appreciate some more on how marriage is or is not a particular and distinctive spiritual connection and what (if any) those distinctive qualit

      • That said, I don't think the State has the authority to recognize marriage, ~.

        Hear, hear!

        In my utopian world, Marriage and Civil Unions would be mutually exclusive. The Marriage aspect would be handled by the clergy of one's choice, and the Civil Union would be like any other contract executed in the state: grab a witness or two, get it notarized, maybe pay the processing/filing fee and you're done.

        In order to get the tax benefits/health care/power of attourney/comingled property/etc., you gotta have the


        • This leads to an interesting thought: what if you only have a Marriage and you have a kid? Without the CU, there's no right of property. Maybe in that case there needs to be an arbitrary law that says the eldest partner owns the kids. Note that without a CU, there's no child support or alimony.

          I'm having trouble descerning a definition or distinction between marriage and CU's from this statement. In fact it seems to be muddying the waters on that quite a bit.

          What is marriage for again and what is CU for

        • ...law that says the eldest partner owns the kids...

          I hope this is a joke or that you meant custody as opposed to ownership; children aren't property.

          This leads to an interesting thought: what if you only have a Marriage and you have a kid?

          I'm not sure this is really any different than an unmarried couple having a child, which is really quite common. There are already well established custody and parental responsibility laws that apply regardless of marital status.

          Note that without a CU, there's n

          • My point is that Civil Unions must be a state-recognized contract between people. The contract says that certain properties are jointly held, that each partner has rights with respect to the other (for example, authorizing medical procedures, accessing bank accounts, and making certain community decisions). Provisions would be included (or based upon case law) on how to deal with dissolution of the contract.

            Marriage on the other hand, is strictly a ceremonial/spiritual compact [reference.com] with one's diety/higher powe

            • Marriage on the other hand, is strictly a ceremonial/spiritual compact with one's diety/higher power, but it is NOT recognized by the state. There are no contractual obligations, only moralistic obligations set by one's personal value system.

              You may be interested in where this topic is being discussed [slashdot.org] more in depth below. AC is making a strong case that when seen from the standpoint of what marriage is trying to achieve and many wish to achieve in marriage, the distinction of marriage as a social and spir
        • In my utopian world, Marriage and Civil Unions would be mutually exclusive. The Marriage aspect would be handled by the clergy of one's choice, and the Civil Union would be like any other contract executed in the state: grab a witness or two, get it notarized, maybe pay the processing/filing fee and you're done.

          I almost entirely agree. My only quibble is that the phrase "mutually exclusive" usually implies that one cannot have both. There's no reason to suppose that a couple married by a church cannot als
          • Ahh Yes, you are most welcome here!

            You seem to have some interesting views on the subject. I was wondering though if I could get you to answer the survey question in hopes it can give perspective to why you feel as you've expressed above.

            Particularly, we've had people in this forum make the case that the marriage as defined by the state is a social institution [slashdot.org], not a religious one. I've quoted someone to that effect in my journal.

            What would you say distinguishes religious marriage from the secular/social
            • What would you say distinguishes religious marriage from the secular/social goals that marriage (to you) hopes to accomplish?

              It's quite simple: Legitimacy in the eyes of God can not be provided by the State.

              I live between Benton and Multnomah counties in Oregon, so this debate is inescapable for me and my partner. Around here, in the heart of the debate, people who object to Multnomah county's issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples generally object because "marriage is a sacred institution" and the
              • You aren't the first to espouse the opinion that marriage and civil unions are exactly the same as far as the state is concerned. But this forum seeks to find the highest values that people see in marriage. That reasons for that I'm sure you've read in this JE.

                Arguing that there is no additional value to marriage that you wish to see recognized by the state puts your views at a disadvantage. Indeed it is relies on hope that no one shows social/state/secular value to a marriage above and beyond DP's or CU's
                • Arguing that there is no additional value to marriage that you wish to see recognized by the state puts your views at a disadvantage.

                  It does not put my views at a disadvantage, it simply shows that they are unpopular here. :)

                  Indeed it is relies on hope that no one shows social/state/secular value to a marriage above and beyond DP's or CU's. However that has been shown quite a few times over in posts in this JE*.

                  The values shown in the link are not exclusive to heterosexual marriage. Commitment, commo

                  • it simply shows that they are unpopular here.

                    I let this fly above, among other under-handed stabs, but here its un-called for. This was the demeaning that you skirted previously that merited the warning. But here you do not skirt it, you present it openly. To quote the guidelines of this JE, "it is hoped the most noble values expressed wins, not plurality."

                    I do not appreciate having a guideline thats been accepted and respected by everyone else here trampled on with a side-ways ad-hominem. This is not

                    • it simply shows that they are unpopular here.

                      I let this fly above, among other under-handed stabs, but here its un-called for. [...] that cheap dismissal was un-called for unless you can substantiate it.

                      Goodness gracious. Evidently you overlooked the smiley at the end of my comment... you certainly failed to quote it. I was trying to gently point out that your assertion that my views were at a disadvantage was overreaching a bit, and I went on to explain why.

                      I know text is not an ideal medium in which
                    • Goodness gracious. Evidently you overlooked the smiley at the end of my comment...

                      Maybe I just missed what you meant by the smiley. Care to clarify?

                      I was trying to gently point out that your assertion that my views were at a disadvantage was overreaching a bit, and I went on to explain why.

                      With the smiley? Surely you can spell out your case on marriage as valueless to society, yet not incomatible or disadvantaged to those that can present social/state value in marriage with more than a smiley.

                      I have
                    • Wriggling away from defending yourself through redefinition and ad hominem attack is neither legitimate nor good natured. There is also nothing legitimate about asking OnLawn to correct you while castigating him for same.

                      LOL. Okay, then leave me in ignorance of my mistake, whilst launching an ad hominem of your own. I am willing to take correction for my mistakes, I only ask that they been shown to me with some specificity. If I could see my mistakes without help, I like to think that I wouldn't have made
                    • it appears my earlier joke that my views are unpopular here is turning out to be all too reflective of reality.

                      While you may wish to excuse yourself as you may, this parting shot is unwarranted. Are you saying no one has the right to disagree with you? I hope not, and likely not what you fully intend. Yet by categorizing dispute with your arguements along the lines of popularity smacks of dismissing arguement more than expressing it.

                      Its unfortunate that you choose to depart now, while leaving so many loo

              • Re:Marriage (Score:1, Interesting)

                by Anonymous Coward

                Legitimacy in the eyes of God can not be provided by the State.

                You're tilting at windills here. No state offers to legitimize anybody to God. Certainly not your state [state.or.us].

                Around here, in the heart of the debate, people who object to Multnomah county's issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples generally object because "marriage is a sacred institution" and they don't want the government demeaning it.

                You'll excuse me if I grow a little weary of the "Around here, everyone's a moron who believes strawman A,

                • Legitimacy in the eyes of God can not be provided by the State.

                  You're tilting at windills here. No state offers to legitimize anybody to God. Certainly not your state.

                  Indeed, that is correct. We agree on this point, and I did not say otherwise.

                  You'll excuse me if I grow a little weary of the "Around here, everyone's a moron who believes strawman A, so I'm right" argument.

                  Yes, I will excuse you for that; we all grow weary at times. However, I did not make a straw-man argument. I simply spoke to one
        • Just a thought, after reading the 800lb gorilla link [later under my topic]...

          Perhaps there should be 3 parts to this idea?

          Marriages, civil union, and Guardianship [the social contract to raise/care for/be responsible for a child]
  • The problem with that definition [aclu.org] is that such a relationship is of no benefit to the state. The state has a vested interest in promoting marriage -- real marriage. The proposal of domestic partnerships is nothing but a Me Too money grab. The government crafts policies that influence behavior to its benefit, but same-sex relationships are impotent in this regard. (pun intended)

    Stable relationships lead to stable families and a stable society. It's true that the divorce rate is abysmally high, but the propo

    • I posted too quickly.

      I wrote: The proposal of domestic partnerships is nothing but a Me Too money grab.

      Actually, the money isn't really the important issue to the homosexual activists. Their ultimate goal is the social acceptance and the normalization of homosexuality in society.

      I regret focusing so much on the money issue in the parent comment, and I apologize for implying that the activists' primary motivation is greed for money (although that may be a factor for some supporters).

      On second thought

    • Stable relationships lead to stable families and a stable society.

      Ahh, so you see even more than a personal value in marriage. I take it you see a parallel value that society responds to in the values and ideals you see in marriage. That is very fair to point out, and definately in accord with what this poll is looking for.

      Allow me to add a bit of a personal reverberation of what you said. It was told to me of one person in particular (that is a kind of hero of mine who lived the 1800's) got married "to
    • The main problem with same-sex marriage in my mind is that it attempts to re-define the family unit. It uses the American notion of equality as a springboard to justify their lifestyle choices. They will tell you that they don't choose to be attracted to members of the same gender and that allowing them to be married to each other is only letting them have access to the same happiness that heterosexuals have. They argue that the government is cheating them out of benefits that heterosexuals have had for
      • This argument does not persuade me and I'll tell you why.

        I appreciate this. As I told SY, I'm torn in that I tell people not to be negative, yet ask for one to distinguish their goals as above that of DP's. That invites the contrast and I think you stated that case well. Just be more careful to note you are contrasting more than critisizing.

        I would argue that there are many genetic defects that have to be overcome by many people, and most of them are more difficult to deal with than homosexuality. Not e
        • Homosexuality reduces a person's chances of producing offspring. So does being born with one leg. Is homosexuality something a person is born with, and if so, could it be considered a birth defect?

          You might say that homosexuality, like anything else that reduces a person's chances of producing offspring, goes against natural selection. One might therefore say that it is therefore unnatural, but I think it's as natural as any of nature's other mistakes.

          Could homosexuality be considered a mental/psychologic
          • Homosexuality reduces a person's chances of producing offspring. So does being born with one leg. Is homosexuality something a person is born with, and if so, could it be considered a birth defect?

            That would be interesting. It would apperently counter the claim as I understand that homosexuality is not a handicap.

            One might therefore say that it is therefore unnatural, but I think it's as natural as any of nature's other mistakes.

            I think that point is not in contention, fortunately.

            So, since you broug
            • I'm not sure marriage in its current state-sponsered form is needed anymore. Women can now get jobs that pay (nearly) as much as men's. And once a man and a woman have a child even outside of wedlock, they are linked to each other through legal obligation for the child. Are there any others reasons for marriage?

              Well, you have things like health insurance, but these could use the same definition of a dependent as the IRS uses.

              As a side note, the state prohibited certain marriages from taking place. One exa
              • I'm not sure marriage in its current state-sponsered form is needed anymore...Are there any others reasons for marriage?

                So far the strongest case in my opinion has been expressed by an AC here [slashdot.org].

                This may appear to be an indirect self reference as I point out that his comment on "soveriegnty" of a family is important beyond the need to make someone pay for the whole family (which is a need that is still contemporary and relevant). Somewhat self referencing because the AC is referencing a topic I've brought
          • Homosexuality reduces a person's chances of producing offspring. So does being born with one leg. Is homosexuality something a person is born with, and if so, could it be considered a birth defect?

            The education of young women demonstrably reduces their likelihood of reproducing. [prb.org] According to your reasoning, their education would therefore count as a mutilation.

            This is clearly absurd, unless you happen to be a member of the Taliban or a similar social movement.

            You might say that homosexuality, like anyt

            • The education of young women demonstrably reduces their likelihood of reproducing. According to your reasoning, their education would therefore count as a mutilation.

              Unlike physical deformities (and homosexuality, at least according to many), education isn't something you're born with. But if education reduces your chances of reproducing, it's a disadvantage for your genes from an evolutionary standpoint. This is what I meant by "goes against nature" (if you believe in evolution) but I admit this may no

              • [...] This is what I meant by "goes against nature" (if you believe in evolution) but I admit this may not be the correct term for something that negatively impacts survival of the species.

                It negatively impacts survival of the individual, true. But that's not the same thing as negatively impacting survival of the species. Homosexuality has not been shown to do that, and (as it is persistent) there is much reason to think that it has no negative survival impact.

                I don't know for sure whether homosexuality
            • one could argue that homosexuality is not inborn, but is a chosen lifestyle. Besides the fact that your assertions inherently rely on the falsehood of this idea, my personal experience argues firmlly against it. I know many homosexuals and not one of them says they would have chosen to put up with the harassment they get in their daily lives.

              One could, but would you then argue that Socreties didn't choose the lifestyle at philosophy? Would you argue that Christ didn't chose a lifestyle of religion? Many h
              • Going with the flow makes people and rivers crooked.

                Sorry, that should be "following the path of least resistance makes men and rivers crooked".
              • As an aside I find the nature v nurture debate in this to be purely academic.

                It actually is an important point to consider. If one sets public policy based upon one assumption, and the truth is different, then the public policy influenced by the error is very likely to be unjust or counterproductive.

                I would say instead that the nature-v-nurture question is unresolvable, and even that we will probably never have an adequate answer to the question. Therefore, I think we must shape our public policy to be f
                • > As an aside I find the nature v nurture debate in this to be purely academic.

                  It actually is an important point to consider. If one sets public policy based upon one assumption, and the truth is different, then the public policy influenced by the error is very likely to be unjust or counterproductive.

                  I agree and disagree. That public policy should be based on correct assumptions, I see this debate as being entirely too straigned to the point of being a false dilemma. That people put nurter verses na
                  • As all sides agree that homosexuality is not a handicap and would then warrant special consideration as a condition, the state probably doesn't and shouldn't care in a "justice is blind" kind of way. That being well established and decided, all else is merely academic.

                    Keep in mind that it is only thirty years since the governing body of American psychiatrists decided that homosexuality is not a mental illness. That may seem like a long time, but consider a fifty-year-old homosexual today... he may well h

                    • if justice is indeed blind in this matter, should the State's justice not also be blind to the sexes of people choosing to pair-bond?

                      No, and you can quote me.

                      Justice is blind in that one is given the right to not incriminate ones-self. For homosexuality, after we determine it is not a handicap then their reasons for being homosexual are purely academic and probably protected under privacy or anti-incrimination doctrine.

                      As gender is not something that is incriminating, and is a very public (even more s

      • I'll agree with the other poster, it is not a handicap. It has provided many, upon many benefits to society at large. It has only been considered a deviation within the past few hundred years.

        http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/ i ri shtimes/opt3.htm

        Your opinion on whether the icon is true or not, but it is contained at a monstary.

        Civilization has not collapsed yet, and homosexuals have been around throughout all of history(even if you dismiss the reference above a quick look in an encyclopedia
        • Civilization has not collapsed yet, and homosexuals have been around throughout all of history

          Please note that while I appreciate your expression and counter to Mr Intel's, the discussion is about the value in marriage both same-gender and traditional beyond what people would gain from DP's.

          Is same-gender marriage something that has been around throughout all of history? That would be good to point out as a claim that same-gender establishes for same gender couples to marriage.

          Eitherway I would apprecia
          • Of course, sorry. Marriage has not been around throuhgout history, in fact the word came around in the 16th century by the French and was later taken in by the other languages. The concept of taking a wife (picking one and takinh her) or arranged marriages came before. The concept of love has been around for a while, but the concept of marrying who you love is much newer, coming in only with perhaps the last century, the last two in some places however.

            Marriage to me, beyond a DP, is a recognition of both
            • The concept of taking a wife (picking one and takinh her) or arranged marriages came before. The concept of love has been around for a while, but the concept of marrying who you love is much newer, coming in only with perhaps the last century, the last two in some places however....

              Marriage also provides a committment beyond a simple "I love you" which comes so easily to many people, heterosexual and homosexual alike. It provides a deeper committment. Domestic Partnership is exactly what it sounds, as is "
        • "I'll agree with the other poster, it is not a handicap. It has provided many, upon many benefits to society at large. It has only been considered a deviation within the past few hundred years."

          Care to name some? I can't think of a single one myself.

          "Civilization has not collapsed yet, and homosexuals have been around throughout all of history(even if you dismiss the reference above a quick look in an encyclopedia, anthropologists, and many more will easily point it out)."

          The existence of homosexuals is
      • more difficult to cope with than controlling sexual urges. Which by the way, is something that heterosexuals have to deal with as well, so if I can handle it, so can you.

        This is a great point. Homosexuality is one of many negative sexual urges. We all have to deal with them.
        (I commented on struggling with lust and sin here [slashdot.org] in the discussion of pornography. Story: U.S. Justice Department Prepares Assault on Pr0n)

        The difference is that homosexuals have turned their perverse urge into a "lifestyle" to be

    • Let's take a look at what marriage is.

      * is a life covenant (at least, in serious, reverent intention)

      Ok, there are gay couples that have been together for many many years more than many heterosexual couples.

      * involving God

      Ok, there are many churches that are for gay marriage and believes god does to. Many gay couples actually choose to get married in a church. To claim that the bible is against homosexuality is both immoral and ignorant:

      http://www.postfun.com/pfp/homosexual.html
      htt p ://www.wo
  • I'll try to stick to topic and not argue points. I used to feel that the linked document was satisfactory until reading the Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts during their recent deliberations regarding the topic. "History has shown that seperate is seldom if ever equal" was particularly striking.
    • "History has shown that seperate is seldom if ever equal" seems to be along the same lines as "they have it so we should too". While I appeciate your expression of the value of equality I'll have to re-iterate a caution I put in the journal entry.

      And I assure you that if you answer the poll question properly there will be no reason you need to say, "they have it so we should to" or "why not". While it is true that the ideal of equality has great value, it does not display the personal value in marriage th

      • The argument presented in the opinion was that marriage by today's standards involves much more than the legal definition. The social contexts granted by the union are just as important, if not more so than the legal contexts. The majority ruling was based on the fact that by simply calling a civil union or domestic partnership something other than marriage, the couple would be robbed of those social benefits.

        I see no fault in that reasoning.

        http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/maglm a rr iage20304.ht
        • Addendum...

          Sorry I'm not being too clear, or helping you very much. I don't have strong feelings towards marriage, merely towards my government.

          I don't have strong feelings, as I've no need for marriage even though I am slated to be married in October.

          I've found a woman I love, and who loves me. I plan on spending my life with her married or not. I will love her just as much married or not. Marriage is just a convinience. Something to keep people from asking "oh why aren't you married?!?". That and allo
          • I've found a woman I love, and who loves me. I plan on spending my life with her married or not.

            Congradulations! Finding someone was rather like torture for me, so you can bet I made sure I understood just what I wanted in the long haul.

            Someone else pointed to Kurt Russel and Goldie Hawn (who recently parted ways I believe) as an example of two people who found their commitment more important than the state license.

            So, if extended to you would you accept a DP (or civil union) as good enough for you? Not
            • Personally, I don't see DP and marriage being different except for the social implications of the name difference [as posted before, and much better explained in the court opinion there]. Those implications are of course quite large.

              I can see where people who have a different... idea of what marriage is might see the difference. People who believe marriage is a religious function more than a legal function for example.

              I don't know though. I live in a very liberal area. Even my traditionally conservative f
              • You might be interested in this [slashdot.org]. The AC does a good job (I think) of explaining marriage as beyond a DP in socially secular terms. I acknowledge that ultimately you do not see DP and marriage as different. And in a way that is welcome justification of the premise of the question as a marriage is at least everything a DP is. As I'm interested in what people think the difference is I was very happy to see the AC post specifically to that question.

                You realise that in as much as "seperate but equal" is not rel
                • Indeed, it is very interesting. I do no agree with it, as I view marriage more from a commitment to my spouce than a... construct for children raising. But interesting anyways, and quite a few of the points are insightful if marriage is to be taken in the child raising context, which I'd say is the majority.

                  I disagree with the worthwhile preservation, but for no good reason. I am not someone who is good at arguing or debating points, and perhaps miss something there. Either way, this thread is perhaps best
        • To me at least, I think the government should be forced to prove [prove used loosely] why they should take rights away from people, rather than people prove why then should have the rights.

          Hmm, if I may this line of reasoning seems to bypass the value of something by labeling it a "right". In other words, it seems to bypass establishing just what value marriage has and instead calls it a "right".

          Don't get me wrong. If something is a right it is important to me becuase it denotes a freedom I can express i
          • Indeed, as the marriage produces no harm, it should not be forbidden. This is of course up to debate. I'd wager quite a few people would consider gay marriage harmful to them.

            Anyways, to the main sticking point. I don't see that the foundation of family creation needs removed. [though as someone who is marrying and does not plan to ever rear children, I disagree that is the foundation any more] Certainly families can be create from people who are not related. Even if you disagree with that, in the very nea
            • I don't see that the foundation of family creation needs removed. [though as someone who is marrying and does not plan to ever rear children, I disagree that is the foundation any more]

              I'll only ask for clarification, when you say "I don't see that the foundation of family creation needs removed", what goal is being sought that "the foundation of family creation needs removed" for?

              Certainly families can be create from people who are not related.

              That seems apperent. I'm not related to my wife in any wa
              • Clarification: you stated a few posts up that the two side's claims seem mutually exclusive, which I interpretted as gay partners cannot claim the need for marriage as they cannot have/raise children.

                I believe two consenting adults should be allowed the procedure. I believe the state has no business paying for the procedure [or rather, I believe as long as the state pays for fertility treatments to heterosexuals, they should pay for fertility treatments to homosexuals. To my knowledge they do not pay for t
                • I don't see marriage as being dependant on children though. I don't see how the decision to *have* children is any less of a lifestyle choice in this day and age.

                  "When no instruction is given, we cannot learn." That was the reply someone gave me once when I simply said "I don't see". I think it is wise, if you do not see something perhaps a better response would be to say "I don't see how you saying X backs up Y becuase of A, B and C". That acknowedges that you at least heard and understood what they were
                  • Indeed, and my appologies. My intention was not to demean or marginalize, merely state my perceptions and beliefs rather than debate the point so much. I also did not explain "why". Which generally is required to understand viewpoints...

                    The link is much more informative as to your views. I am not sure what to think, but will post there in the future.
  • The one thing that I left out of our earlier discussion was the context-dependence of language. I did this because I was attempting to point to the underlying principles, which are qualititive, not a case of the application of the same word, and this is also why your application of logic misses the mark.

    Without a conception of underlying principles ("topical abstractions?"), there is no meaning, only the forming of arbitary catagories.

    Essentially, I have been saying that there are plenty of existing re

    • yet the fact that marriage is different (in aggregate) for one group rather than another (but not when you get to specific cases) simply means that the meaning of the word marriage is context sensitive,

      Hmmm. Interesting. Here's the question, DP's are defined above. Is there any particular context where marriage is more than a DP or not any different than a DP?

      Thats the question this JE wishes to find out.
  • Specifically, the defintion requires of potential domestic partners:

    the two must not be related in a way which would prevent them from being married to each other

    What does this mean, who gets to decide these kinds of "relationships" that determine when people may not marry? This definition concedes that social norms must still play a part in determining who may and may not marry. As has been stated many times, it is impossible to allow gay marriage exist on the basis of equal protection without allowin


    • Whoah, excellent point. I remember in a debate on K5 someone quoting a radio talkshow host who said (and I paraphrase from a faulty memory)...

      Incest is an act, a homosexual is a person. So homosexuals have just as much reason as heterosexuals to preclude incestuous relationships from marriage, if we let homosexuals marry.

      I responded that we could simply coin the term "incestor", or "incestual" to overcome that little hurdle. Much easier than re-defining marriage.

      Most of the warriors have moved on to mo

      • Having seen you around a few times, what would you say is the main differences between marriage and DP's to you? What do you get from the institution of marriage more than just a recognition of the state that you two are commited to each other?

        The "Domestic Partnership" described in the article have nothing to do with Christian marriage. The only obligation that exists is the rather vague "the two must agree to be jointly responsible for each other's basic living expenses during the Domestic Partnership".

Slashdot Top Deals

Asynchronous inputs are at the root of our race problems. -- D. Winker and F. Prosser

Close