A TBM posted the following link and was looking for some perspective. I think the article is a little simplistic and assumes there can be no more than what they have listed as a "truth" for a basis for marriage.

Anyone care to weigh in on the topic?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

"Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,"

i guess that's why the majority of murders of women are committed by a spouse or lover.

They have used their own convenient definition of marriage to justify their argument against same sex marriage.

This article is just a red herring to take attention away form the real definition they want to avoid:

Marriage is quite simply a legal contract binding two people together financially, making them responsible for each other, including shared assets, debts, and dependents. It joins their responsibilities together and in so doing may give them added benefits and protections by the government that single people do not have. A marriage certificate is a legal document. Period. Any religious trappings tacked on are just that.

It has nothing to do with the laughable notion that people are complimentary. That is really reaching to use that as an argument. I know gays who have been together as long as 30, 40 50 years and let me tell you, they are plenty complimentary, but that is not why they should be allowed to marry. They should be allowed to marry because everyone should have equal rights.

I couldn't read that much blather, but their main argument seems to be that we should do it their way because it has always been done that way. If that is true, why did men ever stop dragging women around by their hair? Why did we give women the vote? How did we go from slavery to having a black president?

You could rewrite this whole article and change out a few words and you would have a treatise on why blacks should have separate drinking fountains. That was the norm once, you know? And that wasn't right either.

I can see no reason why three natural brothers should not be
able to marry. Prohibition of marriages between siblings and
first cousins are probably only justifiable in cases where
children could be produced. Three brothers would not produce
offspring among themselves. Prohibition of same-sex marriages
is already on the decline. Prohibition of polygamous marriages
will soon be challenged by Muslims living in the USA and others.

I'll predict that the first legal marriage of three brothers
will occur before the year 2100 -- and one between three
sisters perhaps a bit before that.

UD

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2013 05:03PM by sonoma.

sonoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t


Of course there are already thousands (hundreds of thousands?)
of people living in polygamous marriages residing in the USA
today -- some of which are actually legal. When I lived in Ohio
in 1980, I taught ESL to a fellow from Kuwait, who was studying
at Ohio Wesleyan. He brought three wives with him, two of which
came on worker visas, as his "maids." All were legal marriages
in his country. The local police knew of the arrangement, and
only hassled him for double parking the several cars outside
of the apartment building -- nothing was said about the female
drivers of the three cars, or why live-in maids needed them.

Sooner or later polygamous marriages will be recognized in
the US -- perhaps in some states before my lifetime.

UD

sonoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t


Baiting whom?

There are four points of marriage law which have been changing
in the USA over the years -- marriage between different races,
marriage between close relatives, marriage between same sex
persons, and marriage between more than two people. The latter
will be the last to fully change, in my opinion.

Had I made the example of three white close relatives marrying,
or three blacks, or some mixtures of blacks and whites, would
I have been race-baiting?

I'd suggest saving such accusations for instances in which
posters here are intentionally flaunting their bigotry.

UD

Perhaps. But, if marriage is:

Marriage is quite simply a legal contract binding two people together financially, making them responsible for each other, including shared assets, debts, and dependents. It joins their responsibilities together and in so doing may give them added benefits and protections by the government that single people do not have. A marriage certificate is a legal document. Period. Any religious trappings tacked on are just that.

And I agree that's essentially thats what marriage is. So, aren't the scenarios above possible? And if one or more of the scenarios occur, would that diminish any other existing forms of marriage?

I'm a major supporter of gay marriage. I don't see the possibilities above as absurd.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2013 08:15PM by thingsithink.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...I don't see
> the possibilities above as absurd.

Highly unlikely, for the vast number of inhabitants on the
planet, perhaps -- but there will always be social pioneers
who test the cultural waters, to see how legal rights differ
from social norms.

As I recall Brigham Young sealed some daughters to their
fathers as wives (or so it was reported). That experimentation
quickly died out -- but it was "absurd" in its viability,
rather than being "absurd" in the sense of local authority
never possibly sanctioning such an unusual practice.

UD

But absent some of the rights bestowed by marriage.

Would you settle for something similar with respect to gay marriage?

With gay marriage we are not talking about brother marrying brother. With brother marring brother there is an existing relationship that is not present with the gay marriage issue. So, why would I accept an unrelated issue being applied to gay marriage?

What you ask is a non-issue because it assumes a correlation where there is none.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2013 08:46PM by MJ.

Where have I heard that line of thinking before?

I, for one, can see the differences in the legal issues of siblings (even if they can not have children) getting marred and two unrelated people getting married.

I am sure you have heard such thinking before, too bad it hasn't got you thinking.

Three brothers (or some other combination of siblings) wouldn't really need to marry since they are already immediate family.

exrldsgirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Three brothers (or some other combination of
> siblings) wouldn't really need to marry since they
> are already immediate family.


I think it would depend upon the purpose of the marriage. If
it were done in response to some jurisdiction's inheritance
laws, that might be a different situation, than if the
marriage were entered into in order to legitimize intimate
sexual relations, not otherwise condoned for siblings.

Hindu men in highland Nepal will sometimes marry their own
sisters, if they become widows. The couple already had a
certain family relationship, but the extraordinary marriage
provides the widow with some family rights not otherwise
available (because she is prohibited from marrying anyone else).

A far reach for an example, perhaps -- but there is something
similar among certain groups of ultra-conservative Jews in
North Africa (where my wife's grandfather came from).

UD

In other words, in regards to talking about gay marriage, as the article does, the separate and different legal issues of sibling make it irrelevant.

Seriously, not being able to have children is being used as a reason to deny gay marriage, now not being able to have children is being used to justify sibling marriages. Gezzz.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2013 08:40PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t

No doubt you are correct in that statement.

I was giving some examples I'm familiar with; that's all.

UD

Just because you are familiar with them does not mean they have bearing on what is actually being discussed.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just because you are familiar with them does not
> mean they have bearing on what is actually being
> discussed.

Discussions evolve in threads like these; I'm used to
seeing that in this forum.

A Hindu man who takes his widowed sister as a second wife is
justified under traditional law, but not under the laws
passed by the legislature in the country's capital. In other
words, while the exact, proper national law is one thing,
local customs and traditions (which can be very bigoted
under the caste system) are yet ANOTHER thing that the people
must take into consideration -- no matter how unjust or absurd.
They are relevant because they impinge upon the laws, and
not because a rational person sees them as intrinsically
relevant.

UD

So, it didn't evolve, you interjected an unrelated idea and I am calling you on it.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, it didn't evolve, you interjected an unrelated
> idea and I am calling you on it.

My "unrelated idea" is that peoples' understanding of what
marriage is has been changing over the years, no matter what
laws are currently on the books. There are various manifestations
of that change. The four examples I pointed out are not meant
to be exact equivalents of one another, legally speaking. They
are brought into the discussion to help form an historical
context for the ongoing change in peoples' views as to what
marriage should be or should not be.

Arguments over whether or not _that_ is a valid context, or
whether it should even enter into the discussion, might best
be left for some other thread.

There is a certain irony to be found in a series of posting
complaints which primarily serve to keep a side controversy
ongoing, at the expense of the original thread topic -- I'm
sure you will agree to that much, at least.

UD

Some people resent the fact that gay marriage is likely to become a reality, not because they don't want gays to marry, but because they think the concept of civil union is more egalitarian than the concept of marriage. Marriage is too tied up with religion, and outmoded, prejudiced ideas. Civil union has been pursued by the gay community, and it might have triumphed had it not been for the (soon to be) success of gay marriage. Hence, we will have to wait longer for civil unions to become law.

Legal marriages are the dominate form of marriage, religion should have no business defining laws, including the law regarding marriage. It is law that defines the majority of marriages, not religion.

But hey, if you think civil unions are OK, why not let straits have civil unions and give the gays marriage and everyone would be happy, right?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2013 05:10PM by MJ.

Thanks for the responses. My views align with Blueorchid. And, I agree with MJ, that religon should have no business in defining laws concerning marriage.

To me, this article set's up a straw-man argument, I don't agree with the premise.

My grandfather (80+) got married to his second wife long after she was past child-bearing age (75). All their children from previous marriages were long out of the house and had children of their own. Where does that fit with this notion that marriage is only about the protection of children?

If marriage has to be religious - I'm in trouble. No church. No minister. No prayer. No religious blessing. A renovated house, friends & family, good food, & a notary public. Is my marriage not worthy? The state seems to think I'm married. My tax returns say I'm married. Should I consider that I have a "Civil Union" because it isn't religious?

A marriage is the joining of things to make one thing. When you make a cake you marry the ingredients . When companies merge they marry.

The short version: Marriage is, (from my experience of over 50 years), an evolving, (changing), fluid, partnership of sharing responsibilities of a home and children, if there are any. It is a contract, by law. It requires a serious, commitment.

The government is always redefining marriage.
Long ago one could not marry blacks or Indians.
The government redefined marriage so that now it is OK.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2013 08:28PM by Dave the Atheist.

I read the first few paragraphs and couldn't take any more. They are basing this on what they call "truths," that I don't believe are true.

First of all, the idea that men and women are complementary. People who believe this are the ones who want to enforce strict gender roles. They believe that men and women are different from each other and need each other to be a complete unit. These folks are really scared of same-sex couples because seeing two men or two women having a successful partnership just blows away their whole premise that men and women are complementary.

People are people. Most psychological studies looking for differences between the genders don't really find them. The ones that do seem to find differences are the ones that make the news and get a lot of attention. We might see some generalities, that most men are more ___ than most women, but there is always going to be some overlap. The categories are not 100% mutually exclusive.

And as to the part about reproduction requiring a man and a woman....well we all know that straight couples who don't want children or who are unable to have them are still allowed to marry. And there are other ways to become parents.