Both of these have already happened AFAIK
It’s like saying pasta is noodles. Technically it’s kinda true, but we obviously know they are different. Definitions what things are matter.
What do you think of
- adopted family members addressing and referring to each other without the “step-” prefix?
- naturalized citizens identifying themselves as “citizens” rather than as “foreigners”?
“But why do they have to use the same word when it’s not the same thing?”
One of the reasons – no argument from me.
And yes I know many heterosexual couple don’t. The incentives you give are mostly given because it extends to your children and helps the difficulties of having children. The government absolutely has an interest in people having children, Taiwan and other places gives you tax breaks and subsidies for having children. I think this is an important part of marriage, the future generations.
I think you’re missing the forest here.
If humans suddenly became unable to reproduce through mating, would it make sense to eliminate the institution of marriage?
If God rules over marriage, but neither the church nor the state is fit to play an administrative role, you need God to be highly interventionist. Otherwise, it’s anarchy, which you said the other day you don’t support.
No I haven’t.
And the title of the thread I made is why do men get bashed for no reason I think of a man has 30 children with different women and take no social responsibilities of that. Seems reasonable to be bashed due to the social consequences.
“For no reason” or “for no good reason”? I don’t have 30 kids with different women. It’s probably rarer than chopping up your ex, if we want to get into that again… 
the definition of marriage I believe in can not be given by the state.
What do you think of common law marriage?
Think 30 years together, most people will drive each other nuts!
I know, eh? This site has been going for less than that, and already we’ve seen members have multiple nervous breakdowns, stalking, smurfing, and all kinds of crazy stuff due to people spending so much time with each other. Yet here we are, day after day… 
I think you’re in the wrong thread. Let me help you:
Edit: this was in response to a post that’s disappeared.
You know what I mean. Many men do have multiple children with different women who aren’t in their lives. I’m not saying it perfectly prevents it. But at least if married, there’s so legal basis for them not being able to do this so easily.
No, that’s not true. You’re thinking I’m saying god is the authority of the state institution of marriage I think. Im saying only god had the authority to recognize two people as married. That’s the definition of the judeo Christian marriage. A covenant in the eyes of god.
I’ve already said since we currently have a state institution of marriage. I’m not against ssm. I just have a problem with calling it a marriage. But that’s not a hill I’m willing to die on.
I don’t know. But by principle a man and women can reproduce.
Because we clearly know the what is what. I call people my brothers till this day and I don’t think anyone is retarded enough to not understand we are no related.
Many of my gay friends refer to their partner as their husband even though they aren’t legally married. I know what they mean.
Many men do this, many men do that, many men are not the majority… I think it’s for another thread.
I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing.
And in general, until the average age of puberty in girls started its rapid descent a century or so ago, children couldn’t have children, yet there were and still are jurisdictions (such as some US states) where child marriage was/is legal, and I mean not just marriage below the age of majority but literally no minimum age. Of course, you might expect them to have kids later, but then there were cases like this.
(I’ll grant that it’s not a story of Judeo-Christian marriage, for whatever that’s worth.)
And in general old women can’t reproduce, but they can get married. 
Strange, eh?
And there you go again, arguing against yourself.
Or is the word marriage more important than the word husband?
I already told you I do care about the definition of things and they are important. But it’s not a hill I’m ready to die on. I’m not going to start correcting everyone from China calling pasta noodles. I know what they mean.
Did the Mayans play basketball? Basically had the same game.
Marriage is a value system in my eyes. My only problem with the state calling it marriage is that it’s not the definition of marriage in principle. And I don’t want them to take some much control of something that’s of people’s values. You see it with the gay marriage baker incident. I don’t want them to have so much control next they force synagogues, mosques, churches to have to hold them or something like that. Marriage is an important cultural value, and religious one for most people.
I said some can’t and won’t already. But by principle a man and a women can always reproduce. Key word, by principle. A man and man can’t, same as women with women.
I think we need to make clear and separate civil marriage and religious marriage to continue the conversation.
No.
Simple, really. Rights of marriage are bullshit. Whichever of the 1,000 genders you may claim to be.
Yes it is. According to article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
If you don’t believe it’s a right, under the context of same-sex marriage, there’s still something called “right to non-discrimination”. (re. art. 14 ECHR and other relevant international treaties)
2 Likes
Calling something a marriage is whatever society decides it is. If they want to call same-sex unions marriage, they should be able to. If they want to limit it to opposite sex unions, they should be able to.
This is a separate issue from equal rights, because you can give a same-sex union everything afforded a marriage without calling it such.
In the USA, things like these governing social relationships should be determined by states.
Are you sure about that? in ancient times people got married much earlier than now, and given that life expectancy was way way shorter, it does make sense that humans could reproduce much earlier than now.
Maybe there’s an evolutionary advantage in school girls with big tits, though.
Maybe?
The evolutionary advantages of big tits aren’t hard to see (nurturing offspring).
Common misconception–extra mammary fat has little effect on milk production, and other apes lack pendulous breasts. The most likely evolutionary explanation for ample bosoms is cosmetic, perhaps to mimic the shape of the buttocks once humans began walking upright.
On the marriage issue, traditional societies exhibit a wide variety of marriage behavior. People on both sides of the gay issue tend to react with horror to polygamy, which is probably the most widespread alternative (and permitted by several well-known religious texts).
Mmm, nice chest-butt.
Maybe one day they’ll evolve to turn bright red.
I think we need to make clear and separate civil marriage and religious marriage to continue the conversation.
So, it’s fine if your friends claim to be married, and it’s fine if the state treats them as married, but it’s wrong if the state calls them married, because that offends Yahweh’s intentionally imperfect biological design plan. Is that a fair summary?
(Speaking of God’s plans and principles, how do you feel about couples who could get married but instead choose to live in sin? 
)
If we’re going to separate religious and civil marriage, though, all kinds of problems are going to arise.
In Thailand for example, you can have a traditional marriage ceremony, witnessed by a whole village, which makes you married according to popular opinion, but the state doesn’t care. (Of course, if only Judeo-Christian marriage is valid in the eyes of God, very few people in a 95% Buddhist country are ever going to be truly married.)
In Canada (iirc – not claiming any expertise here), a religious marriage and a civil marriage are equally valid under the law, but you can’t just claim you were married by a Pastafarian minister – that minister needs to register with the government, have his/her name is a public list (so you can make sure you aren’t being scammed), and follow some basic rules.
At a nit-picking level, that means the state is interfering with the church. (What if your religion is anti-government and views the registration of ministers as a sin?) At another level, it’s a necessary degree of bureaucracy in an orderly society.
As long as the state is handling your visa applications, your tax affairs, the birth certificates of your children, etc., and using different rules for married and unmarried people in those matters, it needs to keep track of who’s married and who isn’t, and it needs clear rules for how a marriage can be performed (and terminated).
So, as long as the state exists and handles taxes etc., and as long as all religions (and atheism and agnosticism) are equal before the law, there isn’t really any room for the this-type-of-marriage-would-offend-my-deity argument or the the-state-shouldn’t-say-who-can-and-can’t-get-married argument. And the state does exist in that way, and all religions are (basically) equal before the law, which is the price you pay for living in a society with a high degree of religious freedom. (Or it’s the price you don’t pay for living in a state with compulsory Sharia law for the majority, as the case may be.)
I’m not saying child marriage was ever the normal thing for humans in general, but I am saying it was a thing. It still is in a few places, even after being banned.
But it’s perceived as having an effect, which is an evolutionary advantage in itself.
2 Likes
Exactly. It’s not the business of the state to be making religious determinations about things. We’re talking about a legal arrangement that’s not happening in your church and has nothing to do with your church. If you want something more than that, do it in your church or backyard and do it how you like. Slippery-slope arguments only carry as much weight as they do–let us know when someone is forcing something into your church. I’m sure that will go well.
1 Like
The ruling of Loving v. Virginia was based on the idea that “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.” The ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges cites this idea from Loving v. Virginia.
A day at Fulong should do the trick.
2 Likes