Please explain this to me

[_The Nehor]

So - CKid lays out a consistent, logical and historically accurate view.
...Nehor doesn't reply with much more than 'Nah ehh...'

Right - got it.

By the way - speaking of the '2 girls, 1 cup' thing. We'd better enforce some legal penalty on anybody who does that. Surely.
Otherwise, we'd be 'encouraging' it. And then everybody's going to want to end up wanting to try it out...

Nah ehh...

[_Ren]

Nah ehh...

Fair point - well made.

[_The Nehor]

Nah ehh...

Fair point - well made.

Just trying to contrast what I actually said versus your characterization of it.

[_Ren]

Just trying to contrast what I actually said versus your characterization of it.

You didn't address any arguments. Any points.
In other words: 'Nah ehh'.

[_The Nehor]

Just trying to contrast what I actually said versus your characterization of it.

You didn't address any arguments. Any points.
In other words: 'Nah ehh'.

Well, I'm pretty sure I did so one of us is probably brain damaged. I suggest a best 2 out of 3 Paper/Rock/Scissors game to decide who it is.

[_antishock8]

Marriage between one man and one woman is simply the “compromise” that the sexes have arrived at in most cultures. But depending on the needs, marriage can be and has been reformulated in many ways. One culture even has a long tradition of polyandry, but no polygyny. Other cultures engage in polygyny, but the males don’t marry until their forties and then accumulate a harem. And, of course, marriage, throughout history, has largely been about inheritance and property in terms of legal interference.

Historically, the involvement of the Catholic church in marriage had to do with trying to control inheritance and property. It’s hardly some sacred thing once analyzed.

Charlegmagne had 5 wives and 5 mistresses. He loved the ladies, and it was all god ordained.

I would like to know why all the Het couples out there aren't adpoting all the little baby orphans. I suppose it's not their problem, unless Gayman McGaypants wants to adopt a little baby orphan. Then “F” that. Can't be havin' The Gays, you know, help contribute to solving a heterosexual problem....

Senator Edwards just had a love child. Feck, man. Can't marriage work for anyone??

NBA players tend to have lots and lots of infidelity issues. I'm sure passying laws and having morality police will clamp down on that. I mean... Prostitution in Afghanistan was virtually non-existant, no? Ah. No. How about Saudi Arabia? No. Brigham Young's Utah? No. Iran? No. Colonial America? No. Well, damn it. Those Hets just can't seem to get the hang of marriage... But we better "protect" it, you know, because it's been SO solid for so long now.

[Guest]

Well, I'm pretty sure I did so one of us is probably brain damaged. I suggest a best 2 out of 3 Paper/Rock/Scissors game to decide who it is.

Well, OK. Let's step through your response here:
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... 432#179432

and look at each part in turn:

You're arguing that because marriages are created for multiple purposes that what marriage is is different.

That is an attempted summary of CK's position. Whether an accurate summary or not isn't entirely relevant to the main point - which is that it is nothing but a summary. Doesn't actually address anything.

Those iconoclasts (I don't necessarily think they're bitter) make up the majority of gay males based on everything I've read.

I have no trouble believing that a decent subsection of homosexuals have no respect for religion, nor it's institutions. 'Most'? I'd CFR - but I'm far more interested in what relevance you think such a statement would have in relation to addressing CK's actual points.

When gay marriage is legalized (I hate that I have to say when, not if) it will be of no comfort to me.

You're not looking forward to gay marriage. Fascinating. But again, does not address the points made in any way, shape or form.

But I'm sure it WILL come down to something as irrational as rock, paper scissors. This is a religious dispute after all.
...so - ready?

1.... 2.... 3....

[_CaliforniaKid]

I disagree. You're arguing that because marriages are created for multiple purposes that what marriage is is different.

And here we have the clincher: you believe that marriage is "created", which is why you must assert that it is an immutable "institution" in spite of the evidence that it is fluid and socially-constructed. I daresay that you are also a Mormon, and therefore a member of a religious faith that historically opposed American pluralism and expected to assert itself over the "Gentiles" with the help of marauding Native Americans. So I guess it's no surprise that you're willing to use legal coercion to get people to understand marriage as you do.

Those iconoclasts (I don't necessarily think they're bitter) make up the majority of gay males based on everything I've read.

Try reading something other than Glenn Beck and other conservative propagandists for a change. The world just might turn out to be bigger and more technicolored than you have been led to believe.

When gay marriage is legalized (I hate that I have to say when, not if) it will be of no comfort to me.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Best,

-Chris

[_beastie]

Senator Edwards just had a love child. Feck, man. Can't marriage work for anyone??

Now that is the 64,000 dollar question.

Or, given inflation, the 64,000,000 dollar question.

I think marriage works very well for some people. Not so well for many others. I am finishing up a fascinating book called The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature that provides insight into the matter. When I finish it, I'm going to write a post sharing some of its claims regarding marriage, polygamy, homosexuality, etc - probably early next week.

Personally, I'm marriage phobic. But not committment/love phobic - I've been in a successful, happy, loving relationship with my boyfriend for over 11 years. However, I still get nervous when we contemplate marriage.

[_Blixa]

I disagree. You're arguing that because marriages are created for multiple purposes that what marriage is is different.

And here we have the clincher: you believe that marriage is "created", which is why you must assert that it is an immutable "institution" in spite of the evidence that it is fluid and socially-constructed. I daresay that you are also a Mormon, and therefore a member of a religious faith that historically opposed American pluralism and expected to assert itself over the "Gentiles" with the help of marauding Native Americans. So I guess it's no surprise that you're willing to use legal coercion to get people to understand marriage as you do.

Those iconoclasts (I don't necessarily think they're bitter) make up the majority of gay males based on everything I've read.

Try reading something other than Glenn Beck and other conservative propagandists for a change. The world just might turn out to be bigger and more technicolored than you have been led to believe.

When gay marriage is legalized (I hate that I have to say when, not if) it will be of no comfort to me.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Best,

-Chris

Lovely. No need for me here. Carry on.