U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 02-01-2012, 02:41 PM
 
Location: The Other California
4,258 posts, read 2,320,833 times
Reputation: 1464
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
Sorry to disappoint you -- but no. I am not saying any definition of marriage. I used that phrase as a commonly held concept of marriage in the present day. I don't define marriage beyond a legal contract and obligation for practical purposes given the laws we currently live under.
So, for Nullgeo, a marriage is nothing more than a contract. Therefore anyone who can legally enter into a contract should be able to legally enter into a marriage. Do I have it right this time?

Parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, brothers and brothers, brothers and sisters, sisters and sisters, uncles and nephews, etc. - all of these can legally enter into contracts and therefore, in Nullgeo's world, all of these should be able to marry each other, in whatever numbers or proportions they desire.

By the way, if the contract is all that matters to you, what's the hangup with marriage? Civil unions in California give homosexuals all the legal, contractural rights of marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
Firstly though, I previously pointed out that I don't define marriage as a "mutually loving relationship" -- as that, though some marriages are mutually loving, has been repetitively proven false.
You're a slippery one, Null. You're the one who brought up "mutual" and "loving" "relationship" in this context. For the sake of helping the rest of us understand what you really think, may I suggest keeping irrelevancies out of this?

I get the distinct feeling that you don't know, yourself, what you really think and are just making things up as you go. Must be hard to keep your story straight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
Secondly, as jaijai pointed out several times previously, mutually loving is not consistent with one party taking advantage of another -- as is always the case in adult - child and incestuous relationships (yes, even in brother - sister sex, one is always older and dominant)
What, spouses don't take advantage of each other in real marriages? There are no power inequalities in real marriages? What planet are you living on? But nevermind - for you, marriage is nothing but a legal contract, and so this whole "mutual" and "loving" business is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
As for polygamous and polyandrous, I really don't care how many wives and husbands -- as long as (once again credit jaijai for stating previously) their is no unfair domination at work. Mutual is mutual.
No unfair domination, huh? I see that you still haven't made up your mind. Now you're talking again as though "mutuality" is essential to the definition of marriage, which you denied just a paragraph earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
So no, I wouldn't support any relationships based on manipulation of power.
Whatever. Get back to me when you've thought about this for more than fifteen seconds.

 
Old 02-01-2012, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
2,192 posts, read 3,151,591 times
Reputation: 1938
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim View Post
Don't hold your breath, hon. The supremely objective, non-biased, and non-ideological Nullgeo will dodge these uncomfortable facts like he has dodged all the others.

I fully expect that the Church will decline in numbers at some point. That wouldn't be a bad thing from my perspective. When that happens Nullgeo can amuse us all with a little berdache victory dance.
Well hon , i'll let you and nullgeo duke it out but i will say that you're perceptions of him are neither objective nor accurate.
 
Old 02-01-2012, 03:13 PM
 
Location: The Other California
4,258 posts, read 2,320,833 times
Reputation: 1464
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
No, I don't care about the institution of marriage passionately. I care that: if some people claim a right, all people should be included in the same kind of opportunity.
All people? Children? The mentally ill? Alzheimer's patients who cannot give true consent? No, based on the grasping for concepts you've engaged in earlier, first with respect to mutuality and then with respect to contracts, I don't think you mean "all people". I think you mean all people who can legally enter into contracts, people who know what they're getting into ... am I correct?

That's fine. In fact mutual consent is essential to the Christian sacrament of marriage. If one or the other party is coerced, or doesn't understand what he or she is doing, the marriage is not considered valid in the eyes of the Church.

My question for you is this: why would mutual consent be important to an atheist? I mean, insisting on mutual consent involves a moral judgment - because exploiting someone who doesn't consent is wrong - so where is this morality of yours coming from?

Definitions evolve, do they not? If marriage once required the mutual consent of spouses, there is no reason why we can't drop this requirement today. This is the 21st century, after all. Why isn't the consent of just one party sufficient? Especially if that one party is the only emancipated party? Indeed, why isn't the consent of a third party sufficient? - for example, why can't parents or legal guardians arrange their children's marriages without their children's consent?

The fact is that requiring the mutual consent of spouses for a marriage to be valid is rooted in a transcendent, objective morality that an atheist must deny.

One other thing. Children can enter into contracts. An eight year old child can buy and sell at the store, for example: trade is a form of contract. On what basis, then, would Nullgeo prevent children from entering into a marriage contract? If they are old enough to understand what a contract is, and to fulfill its obligations, why aren't they old enough for marriage?
 
Old 02-01-2012, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
2,192 posts, read 3,151,591 times
Reputation: 1938
Oh please, this argument that gay marriage is a "gateway" to incestuous marriage and underage marriages is so lame.
Just because something is theoretically possible doesn't give it validity.
And mentally ill people certainly do have a right to marry and certainly should.
And your concern for children is disingenuous.
 
Old 02-01-2012, 03:30 PM
 
Location: The Other California
4,258 posts, read 2,320,833 times
Reputation: 1464
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaijai View Post
Oh please, this argument that gay marriage is a "gateway" to incestuous marriage and underage marriages is so lame.
Just because something is theoretically possible doesn't give it validity.
And mentally ill people certainly do have a right to marry and certainly should.
And your concern for children is disingenuous.
As the proud father of six children, my concern for them is anything but disingenuous.

The exercises are important and eminently practical. A huge swath of humanity - namely, the adherents of Islam - are marrying off children all the time without their consent. A failure to address these questions is a failure to define marriage.

But I'm interested in your own views, Jaijai. What is marriage? Thanks in advance.
 
Old 02-01-2012, 03:44 PM
 
Location: The Other California
4,258 posts, read 2,320,833 times
Reputation: 1464
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaijai View Post
And mentally ill people certainly do have a right to marry and certainly should.
Whoa, I missed this. I'll grant that some mentally ill people have a right to marry, depending on how their illness influences their ability to consent and fulfill their marital obligations. Others, however, are not mentally capable of giving free consent to a marriage or fulfilling its obligations. Take someone with advanced Alzheimers, who may not even remember the vows he took ten minutes later. Surely you are not denying that free, voluntary consent is necessary to enter into marriage?
 
Old 02-01-2012, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
2,192 posts, read 3,151,591 times
Reputation: 1938
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim View Post
As the proud father of six children, my concern for them is anything but disingenuous.

The exercises are important and eminently practical. A huge swath of humanity - namely, the adherents of Islam - are marrying off children all the time without their consent. A failure to address these questions is a failure to define marriage.

But I'm interested in your own views, Jaijai. What is marriage? Thanks in advance.
There are so, so, so many critical issues in this country and around the world and gay marriage is not one of them.
If it is to you that's your problem.
I'm not going to get into a debate about the definition of marriage.
It's ridiculous.
As i've said a number of times on this thread, the "institution" is not one that people in general have much respect for, most don't take their vows seriously and divorce is rampant.
If you care so much about marriage why don't you focus on the real issues and not on a relatively small percentage of the population (just a percentage of a minority) who want equal rights regarding marriage and who have absolutely no impact on your precious institution.
The impact is only on ideas and intellectual constructs that you value so much.
 
Old 02-01-2012, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
2,192 posts, read 3,151,591 times
Reputation: 1938
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim View Post
Whoa, I missed this. I'll grant that some mentally ill people have a right to marry, depending on how their illness influences their ability to consent and fulfill their marital obligations. Others, however, are not mentally capable of giving free consent to a marriage or fulfilling its obligations. Take someone with advanced Alzheimers, who may not even remember the vows he took ten minutes later. Surely you are not denying that free, voluntary consent is necessary to enter into marriage?
and who's going to decide which mentally ill people have the right to marry?!
 
Old 02-01-2012, 03:53 PM
 
Location: The Other California
4,258 posts, read 2,320,833 times
Reputation: 1464
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaijai View Post
There are so, so, so many critical issues in this country and around the world and gay marriage is not one of them.
If it is to you that's your problem.
I'm not going to get into a debate about the definition of marriage.
It's ridiculous.
As i've said a number of times on this thread, the "institution" is not one that people in general have much respect for, most don't take their vows seriously and divorce is rampant.
If you care so much about marriage why don't you focus on the real issues and not on a relatively small percentage of the population (just a percentage of a minority) who want equal rights regarding marriage and who have absolutely no impact on your precious institution.
The impact is only on ideas and intellectual constructs that you value so much.
In other words, Jaijai, you don't know what marriage is and you don't care. Why don't you leave the debate to those of us who do?
 
Old 02-01-2012, 04:06 PM
 
Location: The Other California
4,258 posts, read 2,320,833 times
Reputation: 1464
This discussion has been quite revealing. The most passionate voices for same-sex "marriage" are themselves unable to define marriage. Furthermore, they have expressed indifference to the very idea of marriage. Indeed they seem not to believe that marriage exists as an objective, transcendent reality in any form.

We may conclude that they don't really care about the "rights" of homosexuals with respect to marriage because they don't believe in marriage at all. Instead the same-sex "marriage" crusade is led by a pack of vandals whose only goal is to weaken the influence of traditional marriage as a social institution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top