Solution to Gay Marriage issue

[Yup!]

Agreed...I meant nothing towards babies with birth defects, just that it could happen. So what is your real reason? After your response, I have to get some shut eye...I have lost all track of time and I have to get up at 5:30!

Anther time perhaps. We agree, it's late.

 

[GBuck]

If I understand your argument, you are saying that marriage is defined as it is due to tradition. You reject this tradition, which could very well be appropriate (the rejection, that is). What do you suggest marriage be defined as and why?

Where did you read me saying the bolded?

I am saying that the definition of "man and woman" came from the Church and is forced on everyone, including non-Church people, in our current society. That is not acceptable to me in a country founded on the fact that ALL are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Also, my Sinatra quote was to prove the point that there are already more than one definition of the word marriage.

 

[IndyGal65]

Anther time perhaps. We agree, it's late.

Sounds good. Have a good one!

 

[zebov]

Where did you read me saying the bolded?

I am saying that the definition of "man and woman" came from the Church and is forced on everyone, including non-Church people, in our current society. That is not acceptable to me in a country founded on the fact that ALL are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Also, my Sinatra quote was to prove the point that there are already more than one definition of the word marriage.

My bad, I should have said religious tradition. As far as the Sinatra quote, that's all well and good, but not really applicable to my current question, which is what should marriage be defined as (legally) and why? Before you get defensive, realize I'm not trying to trip you up or anything, I'm really interested in this now and am willing to go either way on this topic at the current time.

 

[GBuck]

My bad, I should have said religious tradition. As far as the Sinatra quote, that's all well and good, but not really applicable to my current question, which is what should marriage be defined as (legally) and why? Before you get defensive, realize I'm not trying to trip you up or anything, I'm really interested in this now and am willing to go either way on this topic at the current time.

Marriage: A union of two entities. Bam.

 

[Yup!]

Marriage: A union of two entities. Bam.

So it's ok for a father to marry his adult daughter?

 

[zebov]

Marriage: A union of two entities. Bam.

Excellent! When you say entities, do you mean people or do you include non-person entities such as corporations, animals, etc.? Also, why do you think this is a good (or even just more appropriate) definition than the traditional?

EDIT: Note, again, that when I say definition, I mean in the legal sense.

 

[GBuck]

My appologies. I thought you asked for a definition of marriage. I missed the "legal" part. In that case, it is only a slight modification.

Marriage: A union of two consenting adults.


ETA: I think this is a better definition than "traditional" because it doesn't require the enforcement of person A's beliefs on person B.

 

[Yup!]

My appologies. I thought you asked for a definition of marriage. I missed the "legal" part. In that case, it is only a slight modification.

Marriage: A union of two consenting adults.


ETA: I think this is a better definition than "traditional" because it doesn't require the enforcement of person A's beliefs on person B.

I ask again:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...tion_to_gay_marriage_issue-6.html#post3216775

 

[GBuck]

I ask again:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...tion_to_gay_marriage_issue-6.html#post3216775

You've asked the same question about 5 different times, and every time you have been told, by numerous people, that you're comparing apples to hand grenades. Now you've wasted my time too. Thanks.

 

[zebov]

My appologies. I thought you asked for a definition of marriage. I missed the "legal" part. In that case, it is only a slight modification.

Marriage: A union of two consenting adults.


ETA: I think this is a better definition than "traditional" because it doesn't require the enforcement of person A's beliefs on person B.

Alright, cool. You kept "union," "two," "consenting," and "adults" in there which are also pretty traditional. Any reason to keep these traditional aspects? I assume the consenting part is due to the presupposed legal foundation of individual rights--one should not be forced to act against their will (let me know if that is not correct). The others I'd like to hear your reasoning on.

EDIT: This'll be my last question by the way as I have to go to bed... but at least I have something to think about from one side of the aisle. Thanks.

 

[Yup!]

You've asked the same question about 5 different times, and every time you have been told, by numerous people, that you're comparing apples to hand grenades. Now you've wasted my time too. Thanks.

At least now I understand you better.

 

[GBuck]

Alright, cool. You kept "union," "two," "consenting," and "adults" in there which are also pretty traditional. Any reason to keep these traditional aspects? I assume the consenting part is due to the presupposed legal foundation of individual rights--one should not be forced to act against their will (let me know if that is not correct). The others I'd like to hear your reasoning on.

Union = the combination of things

Two = honestly, if they want 2 or however many, I don't really give a crap. It has nothing to do with me, as long as the tax aspects stay the same. (shouldn't exist anyways)

Consenting = The whole argument boils down to being able to do what makes you happy, within reason and without harm to someone else.

Adults = the barometer that is legally established for an individual to make an informed decision.






You keep playing like you're on the fence, but me thinks you are in no way on the fence, whether you know it or not.

 

[foszoe]

I am saying that the definition of "man and woman" came from the Church and is forced on everyone, including non-Church people, in our current society.

Can you support this statement?

 

[GBuck]

Can you support this statement?

Yeah, go grab your buddy and walk into the Marion County Court and try to get married. You can't do it.

 

[zebov]

Union = the combination of things

Two = honestly, if they want 2 or however many, I don't really give a crap. It has nothing to do with me, as long as the tax aspects stay the same. (shouldn't exist anyways)

Consenting = The whole argument boils down to being able to do what makes you happy, within reason and without harm to someone else.

Adults = the barometer that is legally established for an individual to make an informed decision.






You keep playing like you're on the fence, but me thinks you are in no way on the fence, whether you know it or not.

I am on the fence. If you don't believe me, that's fine. Perhaps you're picking up that I think the burden of proof is on the side wanting to change something. If so, that is indeed true, but I don't think that means I'm off the fence, just that I have a default position, as we all do, unless we had never heard the term "marriage" before in our lives. Whatever the case, thanks for the discussion!

 

[foszoe]

Yeah, go grab your buddy and walk into the Marion County Court and try to get married. You can't do it.

You did that without using the word Church once.

Maybe that's why I don't regard the above as supporting what I asked in the first place.

 

[GBuck]

You did that without using the word Church once.

Maybe that's why I don't regard the above as supporting what I asked in the first place.

Read the multitude of posts in this thread. I'm not going to waste my time repeating others or myself. There have been COUNTLESS posts in this and MANY other threads that support my opinion. Failure to see that is only being obtuse on purpose.

 

[foszoe]

Read the multitude of posts in this thread. I'm not going to waste my time repeating others or myself. There have been COUNTLESS posts in this and MANY other threads that support my opinion. Failure to see that is only being obtuse on purpose.

No.

Endless repetition of something does not make it fact. It doesn't matter how many times I read it.

Etymology is a defined field of study and it can be quite interesting.

 

[GBuck]

No.

Endless repetition of something does not make it fact. It doesn't matter how many times I read it.

Etymology is a defined field of study and it can be quite interesting.

Here would be one example... These can be found by researching any of the other "Churches" too.

Catholic marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, you're clearly being purposefully ignorant or just trying to irritate. Either way, come back when you're actually interested in a discussion.