• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Marriage died in 2013

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
24
Points
380
Hmmm....he very well have a valid point.... :dunno:

Marriage died in 2013
By Dr. Keith Ablow December 31, 2013 FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/31/marriage-died-in-2013/?intcmp=obnetwork

More than a year ago, when states began to legalize gay marriage, I argued that polygamy would be the natural result.  If love between humans of legal age is the only condition required to have the state issue a marriage license, then it is irrational to assert that two men or two women can have such feelings for one another, while three women and a man, or two men and a woman, cannot. 

I have met would-be polygamists who cohabitate as groups and I can tell you that they seemed to be very committed to one another, to be very intimate and to be “in love.”

Gay rights groups criticized me for suggesting that their bid for marriage rights would lead to polygamy being green-lighted. 

    Marriage is over. It is, officially, judicially, a joke.

I received threats of being raped and being killed from gay people who didn’t like the point I was making and seemed to think I should be brutalized or die for it. 

Well, now U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups has found parts of Utah’s anti-bigamy law unconstitutional.  His ruling comes in a case brought by Kody Brown and his four wives, who are featured in the reality TV show, “Sister Wives.” 

I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold that finding, if Utah challenges it.

As I predicted, this will officially make marriage the Wild West, in which groups of people can assert that they are married and should have all the benefits of that status, including family health plans and the right to file taxes as married people. 

It will also, eventually, lead to test cases in which a few unusual sisters and brothers insist that they can marry, because they are in love and promise not to procreate, but, instead, to use donor eggs or sperm.
And, I predict, the courts will agree with them. 

Given this dissolution of support for society’s vested interest in providing children with a mother and father they can point to with certainty, in households where both genders are equally represented, it is very clear that government should get out of issuing marriage licenses, entirely. 
more on link
 
Not that I have any desire to be polygamist, but I have often thought the same thing. If gay marriage is legal, why wouldn't polygamy be?
 
1859:  Married women can own property in Canada, but they cannot sell it. Sale of the property requires the agreement of the woman and her husband.

1872:  The Married Women’s Property Act of Ontario  gives a married woman the right to her own wage earnings free from her husband’s control.
Women with dependant children who have no husband may have homestead land in accordance with the Public Lands of the Dominion Statute.

1876:  A British common law ruling states that "women are persons in matters of pains and penalties, but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges”.

1918:  Women gain the right to vote in federal elections (24 May) through An Act to Confer Electoral Franchise Upon Women. Eligibility: age 21 or older, not alien-born and meet property requirements in provinces where they exist. The Federal Electoral law is amended and women can now stand for the House of Commons.

Considering women were treated like property for all but the last hundred years it would seem traditional marriage ended in the last century when they became full persons under the law.

How about this for a deal. I won't tell you who to love or frig and you do the same. It's simply none of your or the states ******* business.
 
Nemo888 said:
How about this for a deal. I won't tell you who to love or fuck and you do the same. It's simply none of your or the states fucking business.

Don't make it personal. If you do, make it civil.

---Staff---
 
Nemo888 said:
How about this for a deal. I won't tell you who to love or frig and you do the same. It's simply none of your or the states ******* business.
The thing is, many will argue that a family (such as it existed ten years ago, or so: mom, dad, kids) is essential to the maintenance of society.  The notion over the ages was that a sexual (conjugal) relationship was necessary because it is how we humans reproduce.  And by having a stable home of mom and dad, it was how we humans over thousands of years of evolution, developed the most basic of societal institutions.  This was across cultures, religions, races, etc.  There were and are variations, including plural marriages, but in every case, the conjugal relationship was key.  Which is why close blood relatives ought not to marry, because it isn't good for society, creating inbred kids, etc. Also why they (the married couple) ought to be of legal age, so that they can properly care for the kids.  Same with the number (it's takes two to tango, don't you know *wink*) and with gender, because of the biological fact that it takes a man and a woman to reproduce.
Enter the Gay Marriage Phenomenon of the past decade.  At no time in our history on this planet has marriage been anything other than an institution by which we create more humans.  That's changed.
The thing is that sex, as it were, is no longer seen as a reproductive act, but rather a hedonistic act, where reproduction is a trivial result of humans having sex with one another.  Of course, as a recreational activity, it's not new.  Look to Ancient Greece and Rome to see the same.  And probably many more cultures in history.  So, it's not a matter of caring who's having sex with whom, marriage has been seen to be not a right for people, but more of a responsibility.  Because you're right, nobody cares who's sleeping with whom. 

So, we ought to acknowledge that marriage isn't about reproduction anymore, otherwise, we wouldn't care if Jim married Steve.  As the original post stated, it's about people who love each other, who want to have sex with each other, and want other social and financial benefits for doing so. 

Maybe we (government) ought to get out of the marriage business and simply tax households by residents, and allow people to name anyone as beneficiaries (for inheritances) and include co-habitants on their group insurance plans, etc. and so forth. 

 
For most of history marriage was about property. Your wife was not even a person under the law. She was baby making livestock that you owned and could beat whenever you wished. You did not need to look after the kids your slaves or concubines popped out. For a large parts of history you could simply sell them. This "history' argument is ridiculous. The good ol' days were nothing worth emulating.

How does gay marriage even effect you? Now that it is legal will you be forced to get gay married? How is who I screw and want to be my legal partner any of your business?

 
Nemo888 said:
For most of history marriage was about property. Your wife was not even a person under the law. She was baby making livestock that you owned and could beat whenever you wished. You did not need to look after the kids your slaves or concubines popped out. For a large parts of history you could simply sell them. This "history' argument is ridiculous. The good ol' days were nothing worth emulating.

How does gay marriage even effect you? Now that it is legal will you be forced to get gay married? How is who I screw and want to be my legal partner any of your business?
Take off your hate blinders and re read again.  I am monumentally disinterested whom you screw.  In fact, I feel it's none of mine, nor government's business.

And your view of history is a bit....blemished.
But that's your prerogative.  Of that, I'm also monumentally disinterested.
 
Nemo888 said:
How about this for a deal. I won't tell you who to love or frig and you do the same. It's simply none of your or the states ******* business.

Tone aside.....

Actually it is my business, and the state's business, if the individuals in question claim benefits.

If the benefits are foresworn, by all parties, traditionalists and neo-matrimonialists alike then I agree it is nobody's business. (Can two lads enter into a state of matrimony?  Shall I be Mother?)

Nemo - do you enjoy working yourself into a lather?  ::)



 
Nemo888 said:
For most of history marriage was about property. Your wife was not even a person under the law. She was baby making livestock that you owned and could beat whenever you wished. You did not need to look after the kids your slaves or concubines popped out. For a large parts of history you could simply sell them. This "history' argument is ridiculous. The good ol' days were nothing worth emulating.

How does gay marriage even effect you? Now that it is legal will you be forced to get gay married? How is who I screw and want to be my legal partner any of your business?

You won't be warned about your tone, and getting personal, again.

---Staff---
 
Technoviking said:
At no time in our history on this planet has marriage been anything other than an institution by which we create more humans.  That's changed.

Were that the case, older people (or more precisely, women past menopause) wouldn't have been able to get married. Yet, they were allowed, before gay marriage was even a "thing."

Sex was to create more human beings, and sex is not under any kind of threat. Marriage was to produce legal heirs, to ensure those heirs were taken care of (as mentioned already, the male did not have a requirement to financially care for his bastards, only his "official" offspring), and to ensure the orderly passing of property onto the next generation.

Perhaps the government will entirely get out of marriages/civil partnerships/whatevers. It will need to ensure legislation financially protects offspring (likely this will tie the offspring to both biological parents, unless it's a case of single person adopting or single mom with donor sperm), and that the legally-assigned guardians have rights to see the offspring (custody/visitation), but other than kids, inheritance etc laws would need to be rewritten. It can be done. Then marriage/whatever will be nothing but a personal commitment between the parties involved, to be changed as they see fit.
 
Nudibranch said:
Were that the case, older people (or more precisely, women past menopause) wouldn't have been able to get married. Yet, they were allowed, before gay marriage was even a "thing."

Sex was to create more human beings, and sex is not under any kind of threat. Marriage was to produce legal heirs, to ensure those heirs were taken care of (as mentioned already, the male did not have a requirement to financially care for his bastards, only his "official" offspring), and to ensure the orderly passing of property onto the next generation.

Perhaps the government will entirely get out of marriages/civil partnerships/whatevers. It will need to ensure legislation financially protects offspring (likely this will tie the offspring to both biological parents, unless it's a case of single person adopting or single mom with donor sperm), and that the legally-assigned guardians have rights to see the offspring (custody/visitation), but other than kids, inheritance etc laws would need to be rewritten. It can be done. Then marriage/whatever will be nothing but a personal commitment between the parties involved, to be changed as they see fit.

You left out the point that it also was to prevent problems caused by "inbreeding".
 
George Wallace said:
You left out the point that it also was to prevent problems caused by "inbreeding".

Sure, but those problems are caused by recessive genes. In the Days of Yore there was no way to discover those genes; today there is, removing that medical risk if couples get tested. There are some fairly cut-off/closeknit genetic populations already that undergo genetic testing.

I don't think the incest taboo would be widely broken by the general population following the catastrophic collapse of government-regulated marriage.
 
Nudibranch said:
I don't think the incest taboo would be widely broken by the general population following the catastrophic collapse of government-regulated marriage.
The popularity of Duck Dynasty raises doubts with that belief.        ;)
 
Nudibranch said:
Sure, but those problems are caused by recessive genes. In the Days of Yore there was no way to discover those genes; today there is, removing that medical risk if couples get tested. There are some fairly cut-off/closeknit genetic populations already that undergo genetic testing.

I don't think the incest taboo would be widely broken by the general population following the catastrophic collapse of government-regulated marriage.

Who does tests?

Who will know who they are related to, without those tests?

You are putting a lot of faith in people going through a different set of rules to propagate.
 
Do you know what the punishment is for bigamy?

Two wives.  :D
 
Journeyman said:
The popularity of Duck Dynasty raises doubts with that belief.        ;)

;D

Indeed. But as stated, there already exist some...closely-bred populations. Not bro/sis or parent/child, but still close, and over a long period of time cousin-marriages become just as bad as closer-relative marriages if they occur over and over in a genetically isolated population.
 
Polygamy likely predates marriage as we know it. In some cultures polygamy is a form of welfare, where you are expected to marry your brother's wife after he gets killed. It also made sense in a agricultural community where there was just to much work for 2 people and raising a family. My wife and I were just discussing this, in a place like Vancouver, polygamy makes economic sense, you could have 2 breadwinners and someone at home raising the kids, in which case you could have a comfortable lifestyle. Neither my wife or I would have a problem with polygamy if all parties entered it on a equal footing and it was not limited to 1 guy and multiple females. I would also would want to see an age limit of all parties must be over 21.

I do agree that once you break the "traditional definition of marriage" the ability to block polygamy on charter grounds is weak. In fact the last case centered around "harm" and that ruling was facilitated by the facts of the case in question.  Now if 3 adults of sound mind, equal status, no religious agenda and determined to get married to provide a beneficial economic model took their case to court, the judges would be hard pressed to maintain the "harm idea"

 
George Wallace said:
Who does tests?

Who will know who they are related to, without those tests?

You are putting a lot of faith in people going through a different set of rules to propagate.

Members of the Askhenazi community, for example. Old Order Amish in Pennsylvania.

Consanguinitous marriage is already a thing in much of the world:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419292/

And generally happens without the benefit of genetic testing, depending on where it occurs (rural India - not so much; urban UAE, pretty common to go in for genetic counseling).
 
ModlrMike said:
Do you know what the punishment is for bigamy?

Two wives.  :D
Or like some say, you don't necessarily have to be a bigamist to have one wife too many  ;D
 
Back
Top