Outrageous? Or logical? Does it matter?
Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 3 months ago to Culture
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
What does the mouse think of this?
Though I have to wonder how states would address different definitions of marriage. For instance say Texas defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman and California defines marriage as between anyone or anything or any number of them at any age. They get married in California and then later move to Texas, some of the possibilities from California would be illegal without even addressing the marriage issue.
As it is today, there's nothing to prevent any number of people living together and engaging in whatever relationships they choose to. The only issue is with a legal stamp of approval on such. Remove the stamp and leave people be to choose what is right for them.
I have to point out that there are relationships that while they are accepted today that would have been illegal in the past and if we allow states to define these relationships as they see fit. Some of those relationships will be illegal when people cross state borders. I can imagine some state making it legal to marry an animal and another state maintaining the current legal definition of bestiality. So if that couple crossed the border they would then be subject to arrest and whatever penalty is set forth.
I doubt that bestiality would garner approval status from any state level political body anytime soon. That said, again, those who desire to participate in such behavior, even though illegal, I'm sure are able to do so. Heck, when I was in the army and stationed down at Ft. Bliss the donkey shows in Juarez were infamous.
But as I said, the issue comes about by proffering benefits on those that the state has deemed worthy. Take that away and handle the legal and financial issues via contract. That puts everyone on the same footing.
I do not find the idea of some very liberal state legalizing bestiality hard to believe. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if one of those states legalized pedophilia. I would be completely disgusted but not surprised. I honestly believe it is only a matter of time before something like that is floated as acceptable.
To me, the first, first principle is that "I own myself." But, marriage is an act in essence of giving up part of oneself for another, an altruistic act if ever there was one. So, I'm curious how you deconflict this quandary.
I know that other cultures have defined marriage slightly differently than the Judeo- Christian tradition; however, this country while not a theocracy was founded upon Judeo- Christian values by predominantly Christians.
First principles; homo sapiens is a species with two sexes, the reproductive organs of each designed to perform the function of producing the next generation of homo sapiens. Emotional bondings exist because they promote, not just the creation of the next generation, but its survival until it also is able to procreate.
Religious beliefs and institutions evolve to server this purpose, as well, as evidenced by their existence in every tribe of people known to have existed.
The evidence of your senses should make it clear that there are two, and only two human sexes, and they they evolved or were designed to bond.
Or your senses could tell you that sex was given to us by a supreme being (or space aliens) so that we can have fun having orgasms, so anything that gives us an orgasm is as natural, normal, and purposeful as anything else that gives us an orgasm.
How is inheritance handled today for father's of children born by their non-wedded birthing mothers? It's not except by lawsuit. This would not be any different.
Those who clamor the most for redefining marriage do so for the tax-favored treatment that would be likely in their case. In the original story that spawned this discussion, the "computer" doesn't bring a 2nd significant income to the mix...
For the record, I favor traditional marriage as a historically stabilizing, civilizing force, as was alluded to in Mike's comments above. However, in our modern society, marriage (and the divorces that usually result) is broken, and divorce courts do not provide equal justice to men as they do women. As a result, in my humble opinion, modern marriage is the riskiest choice in life that you can make, and it usually ends badly for the man... While I would like to hope for the best, my rational mind and years of observation have led me to the above conclusions...
I do not think that the government should be involved in the 'marriage business' at all. If individuals want to marry in front of their god, then that is their choice. There should not be a government subsidy for marriage - ie IRS benefits.
We now consider it proper for a man and woman of different classes or races to marry, but whether or not people of different number, ages, species or genders can marry is under discussion. These pairings are neither more nor less logical than a Regency 'mesalliance' marriage. May I remind you that animalism, pedophilia, and group marriages are all part of the historical and religious traditions in Western Europe.
Personally, I am rather baffled that someone would ever want to be 'married'. If I am with someone, it is because I want to be...the idea of desiring to hand some element of control over that relationship to an outside party leaves me puzzled. But most people seem to want this, so I acknowledge that it is yet another place where I am >3SD from the human norm.
Jan
Jan
I already have medical powers of attorney filed naming two reasonable people as my surrogates in case I am incapacitated. And - by the way - I am a medical surrogate for a friend...and her husband is not. You can already make sure that the State does not decide - you just have to take extra steps to do so.
The consistent conclusion is that an individual makes these decisions, the State does not. Any single person has the problem you describe (it is not necessary to propose a change in culture for real world examples). The State does set a black-box default for marriage; I do not dispute that. Making a custom to hand-pick a medical surrogate is a process that is currently occurring and which can be extended.
Jan
(NB I would trust my horse over a couple of my ex-boyfriends...!)
Jan
Why can't I marry my horse? Why can't I marry 18 people? Why can't my horse and my dog get married? Etc...
Government just redefining a legal term(marriage) on a whim is yet another sign of the stupidity of our nation
The Government shouldn't be recognizing "marriage" at all. They can recognize civil unions at whatever level (if they're given the authority to do so, which is zero at the Federal level), but not marriage.
Currently pastors across the country have been warned by the IRS and legal counsel that they cannot speak about politics from their pulpit and in a few states like CA, speaking from the pulpit against homosexuals can be considered a hate crime. Business are being forced to provide services even when the religious beliefs of the owners demand that they not.
Soon the religious ceremony of marriage will mean nothing anyway and since this clod's sexual "Friend" (the current level of tolerance demanded for a marriage) is his computer - why not?
I'll give you a hint.. it's not something people came up with.
2: Go ahead.
1: She thinks she's a hen.
2: Get her help.
1: I don't want to.
2: Why not?
1: We need the eggs.
I suspect this man is very shrewd. What he may be trying to do is set legal precedence that would be used for or against legal gay marriage when its argued in the courts. Either that or he's one seriously strange cookie.
Personally I think the government has no place in Marriage at all and should be limited strictly to contractual agreements (civil unions). This said, I've read of a woman marrying a dolphin and a man marrying a tree. Go figure.
That said, I can easily see someone going crazy screaming like that maniac college kid that I posted about how its not fair and its hate speech for preaching the Bible and refusing to perform a gay wedding. IN fact I fully expect the ACLU, the government, the left, and many others (won't go into it) having fits whenever someone is denied a wedding or a cake because the pastor, baker, photographer wishes no part of a gay union.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/01/03/...
http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/13/richard-to...
And I know how you feel. I, too, remember all kinds of stuff. Even stuff I never knew. ;-)
At root, in every society, marriage is always about property and status. (In most societies property defines status. More primitive assignments are rare today and putatively projected to our past.) In our society today, we mask the fact that women are property with religious drapery. Most women take their husband's names. Some hyphenate the families. Only in a rare case - as rare as a man marrying his computer - does a man take his wife's name. (That said, once when I was a teenager and dated a high-powered girl, my mom warned me that if I married that girl, I would be known socially as Mr. Her-Name.)
People have wills and testaments that leave money to their pets. To do that, they have to make arrangements for trusts. Same here. He can marry his computer and make love to her all night long, but who inherits his property? Who cares for the computer when he dies?
Also, marriage implies divorce. In the barbarian ages of the West, we had a tradition called "Morganatic marriage" - known also in other cultures. It comes from the German word "morgen" for "morning." If the bride is not satisfied (ahem) on then wedding night, she can leave the marriage and keep the bride price as her own. Can the computer do that?
I point to _Valentina: Soul in Sapphire_ by Delaney & Stiegler, a science fiction story for our time in which an intelligent self-aware program files iher own incorporation papers electronically and thus achieves personhood.
Just sayin'... if you want to understand this, you have to reason from first principles.
And when the "pet" is a Chimpanzee or other ape who *can* give consent? Or will we deny the right to marriage to human mutes because they too speak in sign language?
A marriage is not simply a prenuptial agreement.
a marriage is the mating of a human male and a human female, not simply a contract.
We wouldn't have this problem if it weren't for the tolerance patrol. We're not supposed to point out that homosexuals have mental/emotional problems; instead we're supposed to ignore the evolutionary reality of mammalian species.
Pica:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...
": an abnormal desire to eat substances (as chalk or ashes) not normally eaten "
We're allowed to define a desire to mis-use our digestive systems as "abnormal", but a desire to mis-use our reproductive organs, we're expected to think that normal and healthy.
I refuse to call a tail a leg and try to walk on it.
What I'm saying is: Has the word lost all meaning? Has the "contract" of marriage lost legal status? Has "holy matrimony" (motherhood) become a thing of the past?
Marriage used to be for the sake of protecting the union of man/wife against predatory males and has been concomitantly subject to legal protection in the form of inheritance rights for the wife and children (if any).
On the other hand, it comes with a tax penalty and a cost-adder for the dissolution thereof (divorce attorneys).
Also: We as a married couple aren't allowed by law to "pull the plug" on each other!
With all of the re-defining of the contract, is there any current validity to it?
Just wondering: What's your take on it?
As Hiraghm indicates, there are numerous special interests trying to degrade the term, mostly to undercut the traditional religious/moral concepts that generated the term in the first place. Even if there were no financial benefits aspect I think that there would still be a push on in our current culture to corrupt the term.
My stand is that we should remove the term from the public sphere totally. If people want to have rights to medical decisions, then write it up in a medical power of attorney (which, as you identify is mostly required anymore these days in any case). If you want inheritance specified, then draw up a will. The IRS should treat dependents as just that, those who are dependent upon you that do not have independent means. If that's 4 women and 10 total children, then that is what should be allowed. If that's a second man in the household, that should be allowed as well.
We are no longer an agrarian society where we need many children to work the farm. And the tax benefit of each additional child is not going to be sufficient to incentivize population growth just to maintain such for economic growth, so that is a foolish rationale for such policy as part of the tax code. We will either have a growing economy which makes more children less of an overall burden on the family, or we will increase immigration to continue to expand the overall population.
As some Mexican friends have told us: "It would have been better if Mexico had been invaded by the English. We would have been more like Los Estados Unitas!"
Why do homosexuals want the absurdity of "gay marriage"?
1) to destroy the cultural tradition of real marriage, perhaps out of resentment; more likely because of leftist political philosophy
2) to avoid recognizing their own illness.
3) to gain social and political power (see 1)
if marriage was an enumerated power, then it would be at the state level. But, I don't see where, simply because it's not enumerated in the Constitution, it should instantly come within the purview of the States.
The problem with granting the power to the States:
"Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
There you go. There's the enumeration you were looking for.
And, I can recognize that a contract exists in another state without acting on the same in my state. Thus, when I transit a state line I must obey the speed limit in the state that I am in, regardless of whether my home state has a different speed limit, or helmet law, or laws regarding smoking, etc. ad nauseum.
And, if marriage were reverted to contract law, there is a very distinct history to follow for guidance.
I said that the 1st Amendment covers marriage... marriage began as a religious institution, not a secular one.
You go ahead and eliminate the benefits related to marriage. Please. The country is already so far gone that anything to hasten its collapse so a decent nation has a chance of rising from its ashes is a good thing.
Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver... traditional American marriage institution was and would continue to be a positive force for American society, and cannot be replaced by some perversion based upon the idea that "anybody gets to do anything they want to do and we'll pretend it's equally good".
Which is why I'm *conservative* and NOT *libertarian* or *objectivist*.
And, again, if I travel to the state of England, they may well not recognize my marriage license from the State of Oklahoma as valid.
Screw precedence. That has messed up the legal system since the first lawyer collected a check. The law is what the law says, not what some idiot judge said it says in a completely unrelated case decades before you were born.
The text is pretty clear; I never said anything about freedom of association. Each State shall give full faith and credit to the Acts, Records and judicial proceedings of every other State. So OK has to recognize a TX driver's license.
And Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts Records and Proceedings shall be proved and the Effect thereof... which means that Congress can pass laws determining how each State must define and recognize marriage.
So if God makes the creation and makes the rules by which the creation should operate, there is no controversy, except by those who wish to change God's rules.
If you wish to change God's rules, then call it what it is...anything goes (down from there).
Take your pick: a) God, or b) anything else.
In conclusion, computers are completely fair game and frankly, the gentlemen who wants to "marry" his computer should marry himself because that is who he wants to serve. Lastly, the term marriage has been redefined by those choosing option b), so I am going to change the way I refer to God's definition of marriage...holy [set apart to God] heterosexual [between opposite sexes] covenant [contractual arrangement within the rules set forth by God].
Make up your mind, MikeMarotta... do you believe in evolution or do you not?
en·gage:
/enˈgāj/verb
verb: engage; 3rd person present: engages; past tense: engaged; past participle: engaged; gerund or present participle: engaging
1. occupy, attract, or involve (someone's interest or attention).
"he plowed on, trying to outline his plans and engage Sutton's attention"
synonyms: capture, catch, arrest, grab, snag, draw, attract, gain, win, hold, grip, captivate, engross, absorb, occupy More
"tasks that engage children's interest"
That doesn't mean that "anything goes" as you seem to imply. I think that a rational society can devise rules/limits that are reasonable. I, for one, prefer in this instance to apply contract law. That at least gets us to people and limits insanities like this person proposes.
Individual rights can not extend to mere computer interaction.
_Star Trek: The Next Generation_ "Measure of a Man"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PMlDidy...
When my mother died, for the first 3 or 4 days, I felt sure my neighbors would call the police from the sound of my cries of anguish.
But, seven months after that, I learned what hell really consists of.
My little chihuahua (my mother's actually), almost 14 years old, had a heart attack and died as the vet's assistant began to take her away to be treated for congestive heart failure. Right in front of me, looking into her terrified eyes.
Every fifteen minutes or so for at least a week (maybe more; it seemed like forever) I relived the moment of her death, as if the nightmare were happening again and again. I finally could relate to Mel Gibson's character in "Lethal Weapon"... every single day...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVl8tJrS...
My point being to establish just how dearly I loved that little dog; she was the first creature I ever knew with certainty needed me simply for my own existence in her world. I think normal people call that "love" or some such.
So when people who want to normalize the desire to simulate mating with members of the same sex sneer at the idea of marrying animals... you bet your ass I'd marry that little dog before pretty much any human I know, male or female. Because the thing the perverts (progressives) are trying to establish is the idea that love is inextricably linked to lust.
I think that's part of the problem we have in modern society, thanks to the perverts (progressives). Back in, say, Shakespeare's day, "brotherly love" was just that; love for another man that didn't involve sex or romance, but the kind of love that AR alleged; loving a person for his virtues and values.
Somehow, in recent years, in spite of our embracing of "different" relationships, we've somehow forgotten that love is an emotion with its own legs, its own worth and requires neither a penis nor a vagina to be fulfilled. Nor does it require a marriage contract. The purpose of a marriage contract is something else, something as useless to me and my dog as it should be to homosexuals.