Definitions of Marriage

[Bill the Cat]

Non sequitur.

It's a non sequitur to show how the charge of violating the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment does not apply?

That the existing laws were applied equally is irrelevant to the fact the existing laws were discriminatory.

Tell that to everyone who is bitching for "marriage equality" and moaning that the laws were not equally applied. Tell that to those who have used the "=" sign as a banner to overturn the unequal legal treatment that homosexuals have supposedly endured.

That's why so many of those unconstitutional laws have been changed over the last few years.

Under what grounds is it unconstitutional? You've already admitted that they were applied equally.

I must say your argument is one of the dumber ones in favor of continued discrimination I've seen, and that cover a lot of ground.

And I must say that the utter cowardice on answering a simple challenge is rather telling of how intellectually bankrupt your side really is. If it's so dumb, then an intellectual giant like you should have very little problem using the challenge I offered to prove that marriage laws were "unequal".

[themuzicman]

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/316/535

Skinner v. Oklahoma

But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

© Copyright Original Source

The state recognizes the link between marriage and procreation, and why they are necessary.

And Loving v. Virginia cites this ruling for the same purpose.

If there is no link between procreation and a relationship that some pairing wishes to identify as marriage, then it does not fit the SCOTUS definition.


Given biology, the state may adopt a male-female only model of marriage per these rulings, as it is reasonable and efficient to expect that couples in this configuration will generally procreate together, and reasonable to state that homosexual couples will not be procreating together.

Should a state choose to require couples to provide proof of fertility or a notarized statement of intent to procreate, that would be acceptable, but not required. The former would both be expensive and inaccurate, as the science of fertility is not exact. The latter would probably turn out to be frivolous and pointless, as even couples who don't intend to procreate when they marry often find that nature has another plan for them.

We don't need to define marriage. It already exists.

[Psychic Missile]

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/316/535

Skinner v. Oklahoma

But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

© Copyright Original Source

The state recognizes the link between marriage and procreation, and why they are necessary.

And Loving v. Virginia cites this ruling for the same purpose.

If there is no link between procreation and a relationship that some pairing wishes to identify as marriage, then it does not fit the SCOTUS definition.


Given biology, the state may adopt a male-female only model of marriage per these rulings, as it is reasonable and efficient to expect that couples in this configuration will generally procreate together, and reasonable to state that homosexual couples will not be procreating together.

Should a state choose to require couples to provide proof of fertility or a notarized statement of intent to procreate, that would be acceptable, but not required. The former would both be expensive and inaccurate, as the science of fertility is not exact. The latter would probably turn out to be frivolous and pointless, as even couples who don't intend to procreate when they marry often find that nature has another plan for them.

We don't need to define marriage. It already exists.

So you think a couple where one or both individuals are infertile cannot marry or should lose their marriage, polygamous groups should be allowed to marry, and a gay couple that intends to use in vitro or surrogacy should be allowed to marry. Good to know.

[Spartacus]

So you think a couple where one or both individuals are infertile cannot marry or should lose their marriage, polygamous groups should be allowed to marry, and a gay couple that intends to use in vitro or surrogacy should be allowed to marry. Good to know.

Marriage is not synonymous with procreation; it is the means through which the sexual relationship between a man and woman is turned toward its natural purpose. It is by its nature both monogamous and permanent.

It is certainly true that modern science, through fertility tests and treatments as well as methods of artificial reproduction, may make it possible, maybe even prudent, to re-examine some of our cultural institutions surrounding marriage, but this can hardly be done flippantly.

How exactly do the presence of artificial methods of reproduction change the procreative equation? Does the fact that we can now test fertility more effectively actually make it incumbent upon us to do so?

[Psychic Missile]

Marriage is not synonymous with procreation; it is the means through which the sexual relationship between a man and woman is turned toward its natural purpose. It is by its nature both monogamous and permanent.

It is certainly true that modern science, through fertility tests and treatments as well as methods of artificial reproduction, may make it possible, maybe even prudent, to re-examine some of our cultural institutions surrounding marriage, but this can hardly be done flippantly.

How exactly do the presence of artificial methods of reproduction change the procreative equation? Does the fact that we can now test fertility more effectively actually make it incumbent upon us to do so?

If marriage is not synonymous with procreation, why are men and women specified in your definition?
Do you think procreation is the sole natural purpose of a sexual relationship?
How do you differentiate between a natural purpose and, I assume, an unnatural purpose?
How is a sexual relationship by nature monogamous or permanent?
Do you think some of our cultural institutions surrounding marriage are being re-examined flippantly?

If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then it makes no sense that any union that won't result in procreation be allowed through marriage, and it makes sense that any union that would result in procreation be allowed through marriage. This would be a re-examination of your cultural institutions surrounding marriage that makes homosexual unions pale in comparison.

[Bill the Cat]

If marriage is not synonymous with procreation, why are men and women specified in your definition?
Do you think procreation is the sole natural purpose of a sexual relationship?
How do you differentiate between a natural purpose and, I assume, an unnatural purpose?
How is a sexual relationship by nature monogamous or permanent?
Do you think some of our cultural institutions surrounding marriage are being re-examined flippantly?

If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then it makes no sense that any union that won't result in procreation be allowed through marriage, and it makes sense that any union that would result in procreation be allowed through marriage. This would be a re-examination of your cultural institutions surrounding marriage that makes homosexual unions pale in comparison.

It's like you guys don't read anything we say...

[Spartacus]

If marriage is not synonymous with procreation, why are men and women specified in your definition?

Two things can be deeply connected without being perfectly synonymous. I don't think this concept requires illustration.

Do you think procreation is the sole natural purpose of a sexual relationship?

No. The Church's articulation is pretty solid here, in my opinion. The sexual act is both unitive and procreative, and we shouldn't try to separate the two elements, but this is emphatically not the point of contention for this thread. The question is not whether the only natural purpose of sex is procreation. A far more relevant question is whether marriage can be coherently understood as an institution that turns a sexual relationship toward this purpose.

How do you differentiate between a natural purpose and, I assume, an unnatural purpose?

With your eyes. It doesn't take an Aristotelian to know that the reproductive organs, in addition to being capable of providing pleasure, are capable of reproduction.

How is a sexual relationship by nature monogamous or permanent?

It is not sexual relationships that are naturally permanent, but marriage. Trace the pronoun to its antecedent

Do you think some of our cultural institutions surrounding marriage are being re-examined flippantly?

No, I think your approach to this thread is currently characterized by flippancy. My statement was a not-so-subtle attempt to challenge you to do better. I think a lot of people don't take the time to think seriously about the issues surrounding the cultural and legal redefinitions of marriage and that that's problematic, but that observation was not the primary thrust of my statement.

If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then it makes no sense that any union that won't result in procreation be allowed through marriage, and it makes sense that any union that would result in procreation be allowed through marriage. This would be a re-examination of your cultural institutions surrounding marriage that makes homosexual unions pale in comparison.

1. Again, this is dependent on modern medical technology surrounding fertility. If we want to examine this, we can't jump right from a few scattered facts to policy conclusions; we need to follow the chain of reasoning from start to finish.

2. A same-sex sexual relationship cannot conceivably (heh) result in procreation.

[Psychic Missile]

Two things can be deeply connected without being perfectly synonymous. I don't think this concept requires illustration.

No. The Church's articulation is pretty solid here, in my opinion. The sexual act is both unitive and procreative, and we shouldn't try to separate the two elements, but this is emphatically not the point of contention for this thread. The question is not whether the only natural purpose of sex is procreation. A far more relevant question is whether marriage can be coherently understood as an institution that turns a sexual relationship toward this purpose.

With your eyes. It doesn't take an Aristotelian to know that the reproductive organs, in addition to being capable of providing pleasure, are capable of reproduction.

It is not sexual relationships that are naturally permanent, but marriage. Trace the pronoun to its antecedent

Why do you think marriage is deeply connected with procreation? Marriage can be "coherently understood as an institution that turns a sexual relationship toward" procreation, but I don't see why it has to be. I'm trying to understand what you think the natural purpose of a sexual relationship is, and whether that purpose is exclusive. There's nothing natural about marriage. It's a social construction. If it's naturally permanent, then what do you make of the current divorce rate? How is that, in contrast, unnatural?

No, I think your approach to this thread is currently characterized by flippancy. My statement was a not-so-subtle attempt to challenge you to do better. I think a lot of people don't take the time to think seriously about the issues surrounding the cultural and legal redefinitions of marriage and that that's problematic, but that observation was not the primary thrust of my statement.

Marriage has been culturally and legally redefined for millennia. I think gay marriage is the most seriously thought out redefinition in history.

1. Again, this is dependent on modern medical technology surrounding fertility. If we want to examine this, we can't jump right from a few scattered facts to policy conclusions; we need to follow the chain of reasoning from start to finish.

2. A same-sex sexual relationship cannot conceivably (heh) result in procreation.

If the prohibition against homosexual marriage is based on procreation, then modern medical technology allows for that, so there shouldn't be an issue. I think that even if that's your angle (which I disagree with), it would be wrong to discount adoption for heterosexual and homosexual couples alike.

[Spartacus]

Why do you think marriage is deeply connected with procreation? Marriage can be "coherently understood as an institution that turns a sexual relationship toward" procreation, but I don't see why it has to be. I'm trying to understand what you think the natural purpose of a sexual relationship is, and whether that purpose is exclusive. There's nothing natural about marriage. It's a social construction. If it's naturally permanent, then what do you make of the current divorce rate? How is that, in contrast, unnatural?

To say that marriage is natural is to say that it follows a relatively easily accessible logic based on human experience; that is not to say that the modern institution as it now stands reflects that logic, but to say that this logic must be carefully examined before we decide whether we want to discard it.

Marriage has been culturally and legally redefined for millennia. I think gay marriage is the most seriously thought out redefinition in history.

I find that hard to believe, given the sheer speed of the reversal of public opinion on the matter. I think most Americans don't have a coherent idea of what marriage is, and what blurry lines they've drawn are easily expanded to include same-sex relationships. People do not support same-sex marriages primarily because they believe same-sex couples can be good parents, but because they believe that people are entitled to 'marry the person they love'-- marriage is little more than a public declaration of affection. This affection, meanwhile, is regarded as being in itself the highest form of individual fulfillment: thus you see people who have "changed their minds" on the issue saying that they want the gay people in their lives to be able to be happy. I find both of those arguments seriously flawed, but that's not priority #1 at the moment.

If the prohibition against homosexual marriage is based on procreation, then modern medical technology allows for that, so there shouldn't be an issue. I think that even if that's your angle (which I disagree with), it would be wrong to discount adoption for heterosexual and homosexual couples alike.

Adoption, in my view, is not about procreation, but about providing a loving home and economic opportunities for a child. Is there a reason that same-sex couples could not adopt? No, but their sexual relationship, if present, adds nothing with respect to procreation. I've noted elsewhere that the Christian tradition and Catholicism in particular has no problem with people of the same sex living together in a committed and loving relationship, or even having these communities take in children, but that these are called monasteries rather than marriages.

[Spartacus]

I haven't rescinded my request that you not post here, phank, and your chain of ad hominems are certainly sufficient warrant for me to renew and reiterate it.

Edited by a moderator

[Spartacus]

Edited by a moderator

I'm not afraid of your arguments. I just wish you were willing to express them more respectfully. I'm not trying to protect my opinion, I'm trying to protect the tone of the thread.

[Shadow Templar]

I'm not afraid of your arguments. I just wish you were willing to express them more respectfully. I'm not trying to protect my opinion, I'm trying to protect the tone of the thread.

Spartacus is far from the only one to hold this opinion, Phank. Your argument may very well hold weight, and I know I would love to discuss them. The issue is that you aren't discussing anything, just screaming your head off. Your posts are rancid, and no one wants to listen to what you say if you can't compose yourself in a respectable manner.

[Bill the Cat]

Phank, you were asked not to participate in this thread any more by the OP. If you post again, you will be reported and infraction points assessed accordingly

[Psychic Missile]

To say that marriage is natural is to say that it follows a relatively easily accessible logic based on human experience; that is not to say that the modern institution as it now stands reflects that logic, but to say that this logic must be carefully examined before we decide whether we want to discard it,

Care to share this logic?

I find that hard to believe, given the sheer speed of the reversal of public opinion on the matter. I think most Americans don't have a coherent idea of what marriage is, and what blurry lines they've drawn are easily expanded to include same-sex relationships. People do not support same-sex marriages primarily because they believe same-sex couples can be good parents, but because they believe that people are entitled to 'marry the person they love'-- marriage is little more than a public declaration of affection. This affection, meanwhile, is regarded as being in itself the highest form of individual fulfillment: thus you see people who have "changed their minds" on the issue saying that they want the gay people in their lives to be able to be happy. I find both of those arguments seriously flawed, but that's not priority #1 at the moment.

Marriage has gone from a legal contract to a contract of property, a contract of wealth, and a contract of property. The idea that people should marry just out of love is a relatively recent idea that still fights against these earlier ideas of using people as objects or symbols. The improved morality of human society over time has led to the idea that consenting adults should make their own decisions, and this idea has naturally extended to minorities denigrated by society because of barbaric holdovers, like inter-racial couples and homosexuals. These redefinings take morality and philosophy into account for the first time instead of sexism, greed, and pride.

Adoption, in my view, is not about procreation, but about providing a loving home and economic opportunities for a child. Is there a reason that same-sex couples could not adopt? No, but their sexual relationship, if present, adds nothing with respect to procreation. I've noted elsewhere that the Christian tradition and Catholicism in particular has no problem with people of the same sex living together in a committed and loving relationship, or even having these communities take in children, but that these are called monasteries rather than marriages.

But marriage is not a religious institution, and the legal rights and privileges it confers is important if not necessary for a homosexual couple to adopt.

[Spartacus]

Care to share this logic?

It starts with the revolutionary and controversial observations that sex makes babies, and that children are more likely to thrive when both parents are around. By binding man and woman together as husband and wife, it helps ensure that they will both be present as father and mother respectively to however many children their sexual union produces.

Marriage has gone from a legal contract to a contract of property, a contract of wealth, and a contract of property. The idea that people should marry just out of love is a relatively recent idea that still fights against these earlier ideas of using people as objects or symbols. The improved morality of human society over time has led to the idea that consenting adults should make their own decisions, and this idea has naturally extended to minorities denigrated by society because of barbaric holdovers, like inter-racial couples and homosexuals. These redefinings take morality and philosophy into account for the first time instead of sexism, greed, and pride.

Any time someone ends an account of philosophical history with "for the first time," I die a little inside.

But marriage is not a religious institution, and the legal rights and privileges it confers is important if not necessary for a homosexual couple to adopt.

An accident of adoption law, and one that I'm perfectly fine with given that there are currently more couples waiting to adopt than there are infants in need of homes, and given that no one has a right to have children. Foster care is another problem entirely.