WinterBorn
Diamond Member
They can't operate efficiently, but they can damn sure hold on tight.
Poll- Marriage Equality
- Thread starter Syriusly
- Start date
They can't operate efficiently, but they can damn sure hold on tight.
You're obviously not thinking about it........ I'll give you a hint, ever hear of the concept of shared property and assets? Have you ever heard of the concept of divorce?
If you're single do you legally share property and assets with someone else? No.
What's the legal reason to deny some people marriage? Bestiality...... Paedophilia are two reasons that come to mind, they can't get "marriage licenses" to marry children or animals.
And yet it does not bother you that the OP is Begging the Question.
You are revealed to be a hypocrite.
OffensivelyOpenMinded
Gold Member
- Banned
- #45
It would take too much time for me to explain it all in this thread, so I won't go into it on this thread, but rest assured I am not blaming homosexuals for it.
Uuummmm, false dilemma........
OffensivelyOpenMinded
Gold Member
- Banned
- #48
Nope. True.
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #49
btw
marriage predates any existing religion (except perhaps Hinduism). But it is difficult to determine whether it predates ANY religion....people have been inventing religions for a long time.
Marriage certainly predates Christianity by several thousands of years though.
marriage predates any existing religion (except perhaps Hinduism). But it is difficult to determine whether it predates ANY religion....people have been inventing religions for a long time.
Marriage certainly predates Christianity by several thousands of years though.
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
The only people who can destroy a marriage are the people in it. Other than that, it is fine.
OffensivelyOpenMinded
Gold Member
- Banned
- #52
You're free to believe that, but like I said...I don't have the time to explain it all to you so I won't be addressing that topic on this thread.
OffensivelyOpenMinded
Gold Member
- Banned
- #53
No you're wrong and I'm right. End of story.
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 63,489
- 69,191
- 3,605
I should be able to legally share anything with anyone, even a group of people if I so choose.
That's no argument at all.
About the only issue would be children, but then, what does marriage have to do with that? Lots of people have children who are not even married.
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
You are free to believe that some outside force is destroying marriages. But that is simply false. Your refusal to explain your position is not my problem.
If I am married, and my wife and I maintain our marriage, nothing outside of our deaths can destroy it.
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #56
1. Defining Marriage
‘Marriage’ can refer to a legal contract and civil status, a religious rite, and a social practice, all of which vary by legal jurisdiction, religious doctrine, and culture. History shows considerable variation in marital practices: polygyny has been widely practiced, some societies have approved of extra-marital sex and, arguably, recognized same-sex marriages, and religious or civil officiation has not always been the norm (Boswell 1994; Mohr 2005, 62; Coontz 2006). More fundamentally, while the contemporary Western ideal of marriage involves a relationship of love, friendship, or companionship, marriage historically functioned primarily as an economic and political unit used to create kinship bonds, control inheritance, and share resources and labor. Indeed, some ancients and medievals discouraged ‘excessive’ love in marriage. The ‘love revolution’ in marriage dates popularly to the 18th century (Coontz 2006, Part 3).
Ethical and political questions regarding marriage are sometimes answered by appeal to the definition of marriage. But the historical and cultural variation in marital practices has prompted some philosophers to argue that marriage is a ‘family resemblance’ concept, with no essential purpose or structure (Wasserstrom 1974). If marriage has no essential features, then one cannot appeal to definition to justify particular legal or moral obligations. For instance, if monogamy is not an essential feature of marriage, then one cannot appeal to the definition of marriage to justify moral or legal norms of monogamy. To a certain extent, the point that actual legal or social definitions cannot justify purportedly essential elements of marriage is just. First, past applications of a term need not yield necessary and sufficient criteria for applying it: ‘marriage’ (like ‘citizen’) may be extended to new cases without thereby changing its meaning (Mercier 2001). Second, appeal to definition may be uninformative: for example, legal definitions are sometimes circular, defining marriage in terms of spouses and spouses in terms of marriage (Mohr 2005, 57). Third, appeal to an existing definition in the context of debate over what the law of marriage, or its moral obligations, should be risks begging the question: in debate over same-sex marriage, for example, appeal to the current legal definition begs the normative question of what the law should be. However, this point also tells against the argument for the family resemblance view of marriage, as the variation of marital forms in practice does not preclude the existence of a normatively ideal form. Thus, philosophers who defend an essentialist definition of marriage offer normative definitions, which appeal to fundamental ethical or political principles. Defining marriage must depend on, rather than precede, ethical and political inquiry.
‘Marriage’ can refer to a legal contract and civil status, a religious rite, and a social practice, all of which vary by legal jurisdiction, religious doctrine, and culture. History shows considerable variation in marital practices: polygyny has been widely practiced, some societies have approved of extra-marital sex and, arguably, recognized same-sex marriages, and religious or civil officiation has not always been the norm (Boswell 1994; Mohr 2005, 62; Coontz 2006). More fundamentally, while the contemporary Western ideal of marriage involves a relationship of love, friendship, or companionship, marriage historically functioned primarily as an economic and political unit used to create kinship bonds, control inheritance, and share resources and labor. Indeed, some ancients and medievals discouraged ‘excessive’ love in marriage. The ‘love revolution’ in marriage dates popularly to the 18th century (Coontz 2006, Part 3).
Ethical and political questions regarding marriage are sometimes answered by appeal to the definition of marriage. But the historical and cultural variation in marital practices has prompted some philosophers to argue that marriage is a ‘family resemblance’ concept, with no essential purpose or structure (Wasserstrom 1974). If marriage has no essential features, then one cannot appeal to definition to justify particular legal or moral obligations. For instance, if monogamy is not an essential feature of marriage, then one cannot appeal to the definition of marriage to justify moral or legal norms of monogamy. To a certain extent, the point that actual legal or social definitions cannot justify purportedly essential elements of marriage is just. First, past applications of a term need not yield necessary and sufficient criteria for applying it: ‘marriage’ (like ‘citizen’) may be extended to new cases without thereby changing its meaning (Mercier 2001). Second, appeal to definition may be uninformative: for example, legal definitions are sometimes circular, defining marriage in terms of spouses and spouses in terms of marriage (Mohr 2005, 57). Third, appeal to an existing definition in the context of debate over what the law of marriage, or its moral obligations, should be risks begging the question: in debate over same-sex marriage, for example, appeal to the current legal definition begs the normative question of what the law should be. However, this point also tells against the argument for the family resemblance view of marriage, as the variation of marital forms in practice does not preclude the existence of a normatively ideal form. Thus, philosophers who defend an essentialist definition of marriage offer normative definitions, which appeal to fundamental ethical or political principles. Defining marriage must depend on, rather than precede, ethical and political inquiry.
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
Oh, well in that case. You say you are right, and yet will not offer any evidence or explanation? Of course we will immediately accept your word and change our minds. Why didn't you just say "No you're wrong and I'm right" before? That explains everything.
- Thread starter
- #58
See I don't give a damn if a degenerate like you plays house or even gets married.
Marriage equality- even degenerates like yourself have the right to marry.
OffensivelyOpenMinded
Gold Member
- Banned
- #60
Daws is claiming that just because some western countries voters or judges say that two people of the same sex in a relationship is the equvilant of an actual marriage by decree that it is so....it's not so.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Pro-Palestinian protesters are backed by a surprising source:Democrat billionaires... that want the USA destroyed..
- Started by healthmyths
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
