CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE and the Constitutional Rights for Pursuit of Happiness

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Blacks used to not be allowed to marry whites...did school age kids start marrying all their classmates when interracial marrige w as cleared?

Its a silly argument, just like all the anti marrige equality arguments are.
 

D_Dick_S_Lapp

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Posts
934
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
51
No! Just wondering how does gay marriage supporter approach this. If pro-gay marriage supporters broaden the traditional concept of marriage by saying it's not just for the opposite sex, where would they draw the line since there are other kinds of marriages that does exists in other parts of the world. That's the arguments I hear from anti-gay marriage. Wanted to get some feedback, that's all and pass it along to people I know...

Kind of like passing along a fart?Or kidney stone?
 

upone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Posts
507
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Draw lines anywhere you want. Color between them or not.

The people who talk the most about the history and law of marriage are largely ignorant of both. Marriage is a socio-legal construct. It was not ordained by any Sky Fairy, and fewer than 20% of the humans who have lived have thought of it as consisting of one man and one woman.
 

B_Craiggers

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Posts
754
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
53
Location
Southeast, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Simple reason.

Prohibitions against gay marriage are discrimination on the basis of gender.

First, let's go back a bit, to Loving -vs- Virginia.

Once upon a time, it was illegal in many states for Caucasians and Blacks to Marry. If John (Caucasian) wanted to marry Jane (Black), it was against the law. The supreme court ruled this an illegal discrimination on the basis of race. Just because caucasians could marry members of their own race, and blacks could marry members of their own race, didn't mean they were free from discrimination. It applies at the specific level. If John can't marry Jane because he's white and she's black, but if he were black then he could marry Jane, then it's discrimination, see? The law is being applied to him differently, in the specific, because of his race.

If I want to marry Jane, I can. If I want to marry John, I can't. The reason I can't marry John is because I'm male. If I were female, I could marry John. It's discrimination on the basis of gender. It doesn't matter that men and women can marry members of the opposite gender, that doesn't free it from the discrimination.

In specific, the only reason I can't marry John is my gender. Hence, it's simple sex discrimination when applied specifically.

Now... polygamy...

What's the discrimination if I want to marry two women? It's not race, nor gender, nor even religion (no religion is being treated differently, no one could marry two people at the same time).

At best, you could argue discrimination against marital status If I'm married to Jane, and want to marry John, then it's my marital status that keeps me from being treated the same.

Marital status doesn't rise to the same level. There are some protections, on a state by state basis, but even then they're fairly limited to things like employment.

So while I'm neither arguring for, nor against, legalization of polygamy, I am arguing that it's in a very different category and the same legal arguments available to gay marriage proponents aren't available to polygamy opponents (because they're not analogies).
 

monel

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
1,638
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
183
Gender
Male
Simple reason.

Prohibitions against gay marriage are discrimination on the basis of gender.

First, let's go back a bit, to Loving -vs- Virginia.

Once upon a time, it was illegal in many states for Caucasians and Blacks to Marry. If John (Caucasian) wanted to marry Jane (Black), it was against the law. The supreme court ruled this an illegal discrimination on the basis of race. Just because caucasians could marry members of their own race, and blacks could marry members of their own race, didn't mean they were free from discrimination. It applies at the specific level. If John can't marry Jane because he's white and she's black, but if he were black then he could marry Jane, then it's discrimination, see? The law is being applied to him differently, in the specific, because of his race.

If I want to marry Jane, I can. If I want to marry John, I can't. The reason I can't marry John is because I'm male. If I were female, I could marry John. It's discrimination on the basis of gender. It doesn't matter that men and women can marry members of the opposite gender, that doesn't free it from the discrimination.

In specific, the only reason I can't marry John is my gender. Hence, it's simple sex discrimination when applied specifically.

Now... polygamy...

What's the discrimination if I want to marry two women? It's not race, nor gender, nor even religion (no religion is being treated differently, no one could marry two people at the same time).

At best, you could argue discrimination against marital status If I'm married to Jane, and want to marry John, then it's my marital status that keeps me from being treated the same.

Marital status doesn't rise to the same level. There are some protections, on a state by state basis, but even then they're fairly limited to things like employment.

So while I'm neither arguring for, nor against, legalization of polygamy, I am arguing that it's in a very different category and the same legal arguments available to gay marriage proponents aren't available to polygamy opponents (because they're not analogies).

Your argument is inaccurate. Laws prohibiting same sex marriage are not gender discrimination. No gender is prohibited from marrying. All persons of either gender are only permitted to marry persons of thr opposite gender. As such the law is non disriminatory as to gender. The law is discriminatory as to sexual persuasion. Though all people are only permitted to marry persons of the opposite gender and in tbat it applys to all people equally, homosexuals are prohibited from marrying the person that they love and choose because of their sexual orientation while straight people can marry the partner of their choosing simply because they are straight. It has nothiing to do with gender discrimination.
 

TurkeyWithaSunburn

Legendary Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
3,589
Media
25
Likes
1,225
Points
608
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Where is the limit if WE NEED TO BROADEN THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE?

You're mixing arguments. Marriage is a contract between two people in the West. Changing the gender of on so that they are both the same doesn't significantly broaden the "concept" of marriage. Various religions/sects have polygamy, other than ONE spouse any others aren't recognized. Bigamy being married to 2 people at the same time I do believe is a crime in ALL U.S. states. If you wish to be "married" to more than one person there are several churches that will allow it but it won't be legally recognized. Possibly most notably The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the FLDS, the Mormon offshoot. Or just don't get married and have a non legally recognized harem.

There are several cultures that practice polyandry, the practice would never be legalized in the USA because of specific biblical sanctions banning a woman from having more than one husband.

As for marrying animals? Uhm can an animal give "consent"? No, then no marriage can take place.

Minors marrying? Well the ages of marrying has varied over the centuries. And even under 18 can marry with parental and/or judicial consent. Down to the shockingly tender ages of 14(for males)/12(for females) with parental consent in the state of Massachusetts, and 14 for both sexes in Utah.

I'm not sure what exactly is your own personal concept of marriage is or where you wanted this thread to go. Are you saying polygamous relationships should be recognized? Or that marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman, presumably of child bearing age to squirt out youngins?
 

B_Nia88

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Posts
1,798
Media
0
Likes
53
Points
83
Location
Victoria BC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Well sister /brother/ cousin marrige should remain illegal for genetic reasons, other than that I see no problem with 3 way (or more) marriges.

Op whats your concern exactly? What bugs you about letting marrige evolve with our culture?

You can marry your cousin.
 

B_Craiggers

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Posts
754
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
53
Location
Southeast, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Your argument is inaccurate. Laws prohibiting same sex marriage are not gender discrimination. No gender is prohibited from marrying. All persons of either gender are only permitted to marry persons of thr opposite gender. As such the law is non disriminatory as to gender. The law is discriminatory as to sexual persuasion. Though all people are only permitted to marry persons of the opposite gender and in tbat it applys to all people equally, homosexuals are prohibited from marrying the person that they love and choose because of their sexual orientation while straight people can marry the partner of their choosing simply because they are straight. It has nothiing to do with gender discrimination.

As I just mentioned. The exact same argument you just made was made in Loving -vs- Virginia.

You had the same bigots get up there and argue that laws prohibiting interracial marriage are not racial discrimination. No race is prohibited from marrying. All persons of either race are only permitted to marry persons of the same race. As such, the law is non discriminatory to race. It applies to all people equally. People who want to ignore God's law can't marry the person they love because of their sexual orientation, while proper citizens can marry the partner of their choosing because they picked someone of the same race. It has nothing to do with race discrimination.


It's exactly analagous. You just define interracial dating as a perversion (which is exactly what they did) and it fits exactly.

You can choose to ignore the facts that are staring you in the face, but it is what it is. Laws against interracial marriage are race discrimination. Laws against same-sex marriage are sex discrimination.
 
Last edited:

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
why is accepting that banning same sex marrige IS discrimination, so difficult for some to understand?
There simply is no rational argument for discrimination against same sex marrige. Not one.
 

helgaleena

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Posts
5,475
Media
7
Likes
43
Points
193
Location
Wisconsin USA
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Female
OP asked a very muddy question. The concept of marriage is different from the legal standing of marriage.

In places where children are married to each other by their parents, they do not have any say in the matter. These are societies where the human rights of children, and of females, are not the same as those of adult males.

The CONCEPT of marriage and other legal decisions being only binding upon CONSENTING ADULTS is not to be sneezed at, or tossed out simply because there are places where children's or women's human rights are not protected.

IN Spain recently, a 13 year old girl gave birth to a child while living in her parents' house, but the child was not taken from the situation because her parents who were Roma Gypsies, had married her to another Roma gypsy already and they considered the child legitimate, even if the marriage was technically illegal in Spain. The state's view, and my personal view, is that she is a child too young to know what she wants to do with her life. But this is not universal. The ability to procreate comes much earlier than our legal maturity, and has done so since prehistoric times. That creates tensions between humans and their cultures now and then.

The ability to have sex with close relatives is also different than the legal right to do so, and the reasons for this are both genetic and cultural. Same sex marriages present far less genetic danger, so the proscriptions against them are purely cultural.

I am not even addressing the entirey of the OP's scattershot queries. But my personal opinions have nothing to do with defining marriage, as it is a part of society, not my personal life, as I am not married legally to anyone at the moment. Which comes first, the legal institution or the social custom? One is the 'chicken' and one is the 'egg'. They are related but distinct.
 

MickeyLee

Mythical Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Posts
33,739
Media
7
Likes
49,861
Points
618
Location
neverhood
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
If we legalize gay marriage, why can't 2 women and a man get marry or why can't a brother and sister get marry? And why does marriage have to be in 2? There are plenty of cultures where men have many wives and perhaps less common women with many husbands. There are marriages between minors and adults and between 2 minors! Is there is an age limit needs to be concern? Even if UNION have all the rights and benefits of a marriage, it wouldn't be the same concept as a marriage, correct? Where is the limit if WE NEED TO BROADEN THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE?

Peter Griffin is a very apt choice of avatar.
 

monel

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
1,638
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
183
Gender
Male
You just define interracial dating as a perversion ...

No I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth or attempt to explain what I say. I am more than capable of saying what I mean and if you don't understand what I have written, just ask and I'll happily explain.

If you re-read what I wrote, you will see that I was showing why, using the State's argument in Loving, the debte over same sex marriage is not gender discrimination but is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

You obviously missed the point of my argument and grotesquely mis-characterized it. Your limited comprehension and analytical abilities doesn't change the fact that your analysis suggesting prohibitions of same sex marriage is merely gender discrimination, is wrong.
 

B_Craiggers

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Posts
754
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
53
Location
Southeast, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
:rolleyes:

I understand exactly what you were saying, it's just wrong.

Following your logic, laws against interracial marriage weren't racial discrimination (even though the court used that exact phrase in their ruling striking down the law).

By your logic, the laws against interracial marriage were actually descriminatatory on the basis of sexual orientation (and not race) because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites so everyone was being treated equally. The only people who couldn't marry were the people with sexual orientations of preferring people of different races.

I know you're having trouble comprehending it. I know it feels wierd that something which is, in practice, gender discrimination could have an effect that's only felt by people of a certain sexual orientation.

But when you try to get married, it's your gender they're checking, not your orientation. There's nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a gay woman (the discrimination is on the basis of gender). Similarly, as a straight man, I couldn't walk into a courthouse and marry another straight man for the insurance benefits (because, again, the discrimination is on the basis of gender, not sexual orientation).
 
Last edited:

monel

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
1,638
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
183
Gender
Male
:rolleyes:

I understand exactly what you were saying, it's just wrong.

Following your logic, laws against interracial marriage weren't racial discrimination (even though the court used that exact phrase in their ruling striking down the law).

Not true. Despite your mis-characterization, it was never argued that the law was not racial discrimination. The proponents argued that since it was equally applied it was permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the the Fourteenth Amendment. The court rejected this argument in this case.

By your logic, the laws against interracial marriage were actually descriminatatory on the basis of sexual orientation (and not race) because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites so everyone was being treated equally. The only people who couldn't marry were the people with sexual orientations of preferring people of different races.

You are ridiculous. In 1950's America, there were balck men who wished to marry white woman and vice versa. There were also white men who wanted to marry black woman and vice versa. The law prohibited these people from marrying who they wanted explicitly because of their race. That is not the case with laws prohibiting same sex marriage.

I know you're having trouble comprehending it. I know it feels wierd that something which is, in practice, gender discrimination could have an effect that's only felt by people of a certain sexual orientation.

The only thing that I have trouble comprehending or that feels wierd is that I would entertain such a pedestrian intellect as yours.

But when you try to get married, it's your gender they're checking, not your orientation. There's nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a gay woman(the discrimination is on the basis of gender). Similarly, as a straight man, I couldn't walk into a courthouse and marry another straight man for the insurance benefits (because, again, the discrimination is on the basis of gender, not sexual orientation).

Thats right, because homosexual - sexual as in orientation - marriages are prohibited. Prohibitions against same-sex marriage treat people of both genders the same. People are being targeted by these laws based on their sexual orientation, not their gender.

Miscegenation laws discriminated against blacks despite their equal application to black and white marriage partners. The laws presumed the racial superiority of whites and inferiority of blacks. Laws prohibiting same sex marriage, do not and are not designed to, discriminate against men or woman. They are designed to descriminate against homosexuals.
 
Last edited:

B_Craiggers

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Posts
754
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
53
Location
Southeast, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The laws presumed the racial superiority of whites and inferiority of blacks.

In some states this is patently true. In Oklahoma they went so far as to specifically ban anyone with African blood from marrying anyone not of African descent. It was specific to African Americans to keep them from watering down the gene pool of the other races.

But there were other states where the restrictions were applied equally. Whites could not marry non-whites. Asians could not marry non-asians. Hispanics could not marry non-hispanics.

All of those laws were struck down, in the Supreme court, by Loving v Virginia.

And all of this ignores the fact that both parties were discriminated against. If you, as a white man, want to marry a black woman, and the state says no, you are both discriminated against. Not just the black woman. Even if you feel that the intent is that only blacks are discriminated against, the practical reality is that both individuals are being descriminated against, on the basis of their race. If either party were of a different race, the marriage would've been deemed valid. Both individuals are being prevented from marrying the one person that they love.

Even the white as white bread guy who's racial superiority the law is supposedly arranged to protect is being discriminated against.

In the same way that if two men stand before the altar, being prohibited from doing something that they could do if either party were of a different gender.

I don't have any direct stake in the gay marriage issue. It's not something which will ever directly effect any marriage I have. I'm just calling it like I see it, and the way the discrimination occurs, at the individual level, is applied identically in laws prohibiting gay marriage as happens in laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
 

rtg

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Posts
3,604
Media
1
Likes
9,815
Points
458
Location
Brisbane (Queensland, Australia)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Female
why can't a brother and sister get marry?

I believe the word incest comes to mind. I pose another question, why would a brother and sister want to marry?

And why does marriage have to be in 2?
How many people do you know that have long lasting 3-some (or more) relationships?

There are marriages between minors and adults and between 2 minors! Is there is an age limit needs to be concern?
Some would argue that minors that are generally not equipped enough in terms of maturity to make these decisions. And why not let kids just be kids?

Are you also pro humans marrying animals or inanimate objects?
 
Last edited:

motoramic

Cherished Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
1,244
Media
6
Likes
428
Points
553
Location
Paris (Île-de-France, France)
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
I believe the word incest comes to mind. I pose another question, why would a brother and sister want to marry?


How many people do you know that have long lasting 3-some (or more) relationships?


Some would argue that minors that are generally not equipped enough in terms of maturity to make these decisions. And why not let kids just be kids?

Are you also pro humans marrying animals or inanimate objects?


Of course, your point of view is the mainstream majoriy but however there are people who are involve in these uncommon relationships think otherwise. These relationships happened in the past and is still going on in the present and it will happen in the future in all parts of the world and including here in the United States. There are always people going to share a different point of view from you and so their arguments would favor in their support in such relationship. In the case of brother and sister as lovers, they may argue something like we love each other but we know we can't have children on our own but we would think an alternate plan.

My point is that as time goes by, society have become more and more tolerant and liberal. In fact, in psychology there isn't a technical term to describe "open relationship". This trend is becoming more and more common. Maybe as time goes by, we will be more tolerant in all kinds of relationships and family units. Single parents are common nowadays. I've personally witnessed a bisexual man with his lover and wife together with their child in public. 50 years ago, this would be unthinkable.

We have become more liberal and tolerant than ever before. Think about our children and grandchildren how much more tolerant they will be than our generations. Marriage had broaden the definition over the past years for most liberals. Why can't we broaden this definition even more to accomodate other forms of relationships, now? Maybe in the future, the "more liberal society" will become even more tolerant, I wonder...
 
Last edited:

helgaleena

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Posts
5,475
Media
7
Likes
43
Points
193
Location
Wisconsin USA
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Female
Do you want to be like the Tea Party people warn, and marry your pet goat, or your toaster? How far are you willing to stretch your 'tolerance' into application of legal marriage contracts? This has nothing to do with love and affection, only the legalization. I can love what and whom I wish without resorting to law to give me permission to follow my heart. But Mr. Vibrator and I will never announce our setting up house together and applying for adoption of war orphans.
 

D_Kitten_Kaboodle

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Posts
4,271
Media
0
Likes
100
Points
83
Although marriage in US is a contract between the two parties AND the State in which they marry, marriage is a religious ceremony in many cases to witness before friends and god a commitment of love until death.

As humans evolve and become more understanding and accepting of human nature, churches will also evolve to accept same sex marriages. In fact, it has already happened in some churches.

There are non-religious marriages, ceremonies, conducted by authorized personnel (Probate Judges, for example) that are just as recognized by the State as one conducted by clergy.

Doing some research, I found:
States that recognize common law marriages - 16
States that recognize same sex marriages - 9
States that recognize civil unions - 5
States that recognize domestic partnerships - 5 (additional states)

That is not very many, but it is a start. I think we are witnessing attitudinal changes more and more every day. Acceptance to change is never quick and easy. History has proved that. But history has also proven that the changes have improved society as a whole.

Some of the questions you bring up are non-consenting... so what I consider null and void. (My Opinion Only! ~~)