Strawman arguments about semantics aside, what does marriage mean to you? Nothing? Everything? Why even have a word as a concepts that could mean nothing and everything simultaneously. And if you don't see the importance of marriage for society, then this is probably the wrong thread for you.
Marriage has a meaning. As long as people utilize English, it will have a meaning. Future derivatives of the language may retain the word, alter its meaning or spelling, or eliminate it. mar·riage ˈmerij/ noun 1. the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.
If marriage is "supposed to be a commitment to a single spouse, for life" then why is our divorce rate so high I wonder? So 3 gay men get married in Thailand... what is the big deal? Who are they harming? If the answer is no one then why would any of us take issue with their marriage? Many words are contextual and open to interpretation... like freedom... which I would argue the gay trio are practicing.
I don't support the increase in frivolous divorces anymore than I do an open marriage. My point is marriage is now meaningless, which hardly equates to "freedom".
Meaningless to you perhaps. Who gets to decide if a marriage has meaning? You? Me? The married trio? Someone else? And by what authority? What is meaningless to you can have great meaning to another. Meaning is relative to the individual.
Then why force the government to recognize it? The idea that a word means everything and yet nothing is stupid. But don't get offended because stupid is a compliment in this case. The word has evolved.
Apparently it's a straight issue...from Wiki.. When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, the relationship is called polygyny; and when a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, it can be called polyamory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
Because great change can come from civil disobedience. Government is not synonomous with morality as morality is based upon something much deeper. Making harmless action illegal is immoral by my measure of morality. Three men being married in and of itself harms no one. Outlawing the inconsequential is silly as it is the job of Government to protect society from that which causes actual harm. Labeling a thing as stupid often says more about the one doing the labeling than the thing being labeled. Anyway what constitutes stupid is subjective and wide open to interpretation.
Mine is my commitment to my lover. It doesn't matter to me what other people do. It doesn't have to mean the same thing to everybody for it to mean that to me. It doesn't. You are making the mistake that because it doesn't mean what you think it should mean it therefore can mean anything. It's a bit if hyperbole in your part. So anybody that disagrees with you about it can't debate? Huh why hasn't the debating community heard of this rule? I just don't think your rigid definition has much value to society. Being that is rather recent.
So, what you're saying is government should legally recognize a word that should be expanded to include everybody's interpretation of that word? Fortunately, stupid has evolved enough to include that very idea.
No. I am saying that Government should not make harmless action illegal. Can you tell me how 3 men getting married in and of itself harms anyone? If not then what is the basis of your objection?
What is so sacred about your meaning of that word that it can't be sullied with plural, open, and same sex marriage? I've heard this nonsense about the traditional meaning being the backbone of civilization. But it seems that is just unfounded claims that cannot be supported. I'm more than willing to listen to your reasons if you can rationalize them.
Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. Marriage is based on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and on the social reality that children need a mother and a father. And as ample social science has shown, children tend to do best when reared by their mother and father. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes. Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits the public good. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of future citizens. State recognition of marriage protects children by incentivizing adults to commit permanently and exclusively to each other and their children. And far from having been intended to exclude same-sex relationships, marriage as we always have known it arose in many places over several centuries, when same-sex marriage was nowhere on the radar. Indeed, marriage arose in cultures that had no concept of sexual orientation, and in some that fully accepted homoeroticism and even took it for granted. In recent years marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. Americans increasingly are tempted to think that marriage is simply whatever sort of relationship consenting adults—be they two or 10 in number—want it to be: sexual or platonic, sexually exclusive or open, temporary or permanent. Redefining marriage to exclude the idea that it is fundamentally related to the union of a man and woman would make emotional intensity the only thing left to set marriage apart from other kinds of relationships. Redefining marriage would put a new principle into law—that marriage is whatever emotional bond the government says it is. No principled reason could be offered for why an emotional union should be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or exclusive (as opposed to “open”. Couples might live out these norms where temperament or taste motivated them, but no reason of principle would compel them. This understanding has been shared by the Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions; by ancient Greek and Roman thinkers untouched by these religions; and by various Enlightenment philosophers. It is affirmed by both common and civil law, and by ancient Greek and Roman law.
So, you think that if people were to marry the same sex or more than one person, nobody will value their marriage Sorry, I don't see that reasoning. People quill still be in traditional marriages in a very large majority will still adhere to the current concept of marriage. Which in and of itself is relatively new as a social construct.
You know, I think the socialization of society is important. Clearly there are differences among genders, hence why every language in the world differentiates between the two, and those differences apply to marriage. To ignore it is to ignore the intent of marriage. But I do appreciate you debating this like a respectable adult, because there are some people with severe personality issues and I'm sure I'll be hearing from them any second now...
The point of marriage is commitment and love. The only thing that "threatens" the sancity of marriage, then, is an absence of those ideals. If a polygamous relationship is committed and loving, then it is still legitimate marriage.
We aren't talking about a relationship being settled and then suddenly expanded. We are talking about an initial commitment between multiple people.
If you go by physical maturity, then a girl is supposed to find a spouse when sh has her first period. That is wen nature intended them to begin reproducing. But when you take emotional and mental maturity into account, most women, especially Americans, are not ready for marriage unto well into their twenties.
many have more then one legal wife... just not at the same time I say legal, because religious marriage does not carry any weight if not a legal marriage too.... if your church wants to marry you 100 times, have at it, but until one is registered legally, none will mean a thing .
heterosexuals marry teens today, no one even denied them a cake.... let alone protested their marriage.... "Green Mile Actor, 51, Marries 16-Year-Old Aspiring Pop Singer; Says "True Love Can Be Ageless"" http://www.eonline.com/news/248227/...ring-pop-singer-says-true-love-can-be-ageless .
You're thinking of holy matrimony, the religious version of marriage. What the state does with marriage law is completely separate. Doesn't matter if the roots of legal marriage are from religious marriage customs, they are no longer the same thing. They are now independent institutions and folks would do well to stop getting the two confused or thinking they are one and the same.
Even while allowing polygamy, the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to Gods ideal for marriage. The Bible says that Gods original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [not wives or husband/s], and they will become one flesh [not fleshes] (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singular should be noted. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, God says that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives (or horses or gold). While this cannot be interpreted as a command that the kings must be monogamous, it can be understood as declaring that having multiple wives causes problems. This can be clearly seen in the life of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3-4). In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give the husband of one wife in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership. There is some debate as to what specifically this qualification means. The phrase could literally be translated a one-woman man. Whether or not this phrase is referring exclusively to polygamy, in no sense can a polygamist be considered a one-woman man. While these qualifications are specifically for positions of spiritual leadership, they should apply equally to all Christians. Should not all Christians be above reproach...temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all. Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html#ixzz3TszjdJNe
