The Meaning of Marriage Has Changed

[Johnny]

Marriage should be defined by those in said marriage. As long as the parties are consenting adults.

If gays want to marry, fine. If straights want to marry, fine.

If a woman wants 10 husbands or a guy wants 10 wives fine.

Open marriage, traditional marriage, swingers, all fine in my book. Whatever works for them.

 

[Demon of Light]

That wasn't the argument I made. But nice strawman.

Sure you just used the term "change" to refer to the gradual erosion of commitment to the institution and loss of its necessity implying there is no harm in further "change" because it is going to "change" either way. Not at all the same unless we forget by "change" you mean what you said the change was with the institution.

The argument I made was the meaning of marriage has already permanently changed form the "traditional definition" as a direct result of those advances. Are you advocating that we rescind all those advances that have collectively changed the meaning of marriage over the last century? If you aren't advocating that position then you really aren't defending the alleged "traditional definition" of marriage you are just trying to keep same sex couples out.

You know, I do not think the legal institution marriage has ever at any point held real meaning. That, however, is not a good reason to say same-sex marriage should be allowed.

The argument you guys are basically making is, at one point in time marriage was about procreation and so now we want to ban same sex couples from marrying.

"You guys"? Did you read the bit before the sentence you quoted?

If a woman wants 10 husbands or a guy wants 10 wives fine.

No way should polygamy ever be allowed. It would be a litigation nightmare, which is saying something when talking about marriage.

 

[CriticalThought]

Sure you just used the term "change" to refer to the gradual erosion of commitment to the institution and loss of its necessity implying there is no harm in further "change" because it is going to "change" either way. Not at all the same unless we forget by "change" you mean what you said the change was with the institution.

Right now, both parties are trying to change marriage to a meaning that is not representative of its current meaning. And there are consequences for changing it either way. If the pro same sex marriage side prevails, then the potential consequence is that people who hold traditional religous convictions regarding marriage could be concieved as bigots in the public square. If the anti same sex marriage side prevails, then marriage will be codified as an institution of discrimination and same sex families will be designated as inferior by society. The stakes are very high because it ultimately comes down to power. Both sides also want to protect their children from the other side.

You know, I do not think the legal institution marriage has ever at any point held real meaning. That, however, is not a good reason to say same-sex marriage should be allowed.

Well that is a new one. The argument for keeping same sex couples from having marriage has always been to "preserve the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman." If you arguing that marriage has no meaning, then what argument could you possilbly have from keeping same sex couples from marrying?

"You guys"? Did you read the bit before the sentence you quoted?

Yes I did, but we both know you usually take a conservative stance on these issues. I think the view that marriage is solely a "legal institution" or "package of benefits" is inherently flawed. Marriage has profound benefits for children and is very normative to society.

 

[Demon of Light]

Right now, both parties are trying to change marriage to a meaning that is not representative of its current meaning. And there are consequences for changing it either way. If the pro same sex marriage side prevails, then the potential consequence is that people who hold traditional religous convictions regarding marriage could be concieved as bigots in the public square. If the anti same sex marriage side prevails, then marriage will be codified as an institution of discrimination and same sex families will be designated as inferior by society. The stakes are very high because it ultimately comes down to power. Both sides also want to protect their children from the other side.

I feel that is a reasonable position.

Well that is a new one. The argument for keeping same sex couples from having marriage has always been to "preserve the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman." If you arguing that marriage has no meaning, then what argument could you possilbly have from keeping same sex couples from marrying?

None. I think there is no reason to deny them access to the legal institution of marriage. Also, I am talking specifically about marriage as a legal institution.

Yes I did, but we both know you usually take a conservative stance on these issues.

What issues? How exactly do you define a "conservative" stance?

I think the view that marriage is solely a "legal institution" or "package of benefits" is inherently flawed.

I am not saying there is only one kind of marriage. Rather the legal institution is what we are talking about. Surely we are not talking about some personal or cultural form of marriage. People have a right to the latter, but just like driving a car it is a privilege to have legal marriage.

Marriage has profound benefits for children and is very normative to society.

Being a "package of benefits" naturally means it has benefits so I don't get why you are saying this.

 

[CriticalThought]

I guess you can ignore the normative element to marriage. At the present moment, I cannot conceive of an argument why you cannot view marriage as just a legal institution.