6/16/2013 4:09 PM
Except "one man/one woman" has never been a "restriction".  It's been a fundamental and universally consistent attribute of marriage since the beginning of human culture and civilization.

You cannot make a good faith argument that that has not been the case for thousands of years.
6/16/2013 6:00 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2013 4:09:00 PM (view original):
Except "one man/one woman" has never been a "restriction".  It's been a fundamental and universally consistent attribute of marriage since the beginning of human culture and civilization.

You cannot make a good faith argument that that has not been the case for thousands of years.
So what? Same race was a constant for the entire history of the US until 1967. Opposite gender is a similar restriction in 39 states today.
6/16/2013 6:10 PM
So what?  You're making up **** or being intentionally obtuse again.

One man, one woman was the generally accepted definition of marriage since the US was formed(before, actually, but we're talking about the US now).   States added restrictions, like race, because they didn't want mixed races.   However, it has never changed, or been altered by any form of government, from "one man, one woman."

Quit acting like you don't understand this.   
6/16/2013 7:23 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2013 4:09:00 PM (view original):
Except "one man/one woman" has never been a "restriction".  It's been a fundamental and universally consistent attribute of marriage since the beginning of human culture and civilization.

You cannot make a good faith argument that that has not been the case for thousands of years.
Irrelevant, but also false. Ever heard of polygamy?

And regarding "thousands of years," none of us were around then. Certainly the earliest forms of marriage predate recorded history. For all we know, some societies had something akin to gay marriage.

But again, that's simply irrelevant. The issue isn't what was done in the past, but what we should do in our society. Should we deny a segment of our society the same rights the rest enjoy, just because some people can't deal with changes that don't even have any substantial effect on their lives?
6/16/2013 7:40 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2013 6:10:00 PM (view original):
So what?  You're making up **** or being intentionally obtuse again.

One man, one woman was the generally accepted definition of marriage since the US was formed(before, actually, but we're talking about the US now).   States added restrictions, like race, because they didn't want mixed races.   However, it has never changed, or been altered by any form of government, from "one man, one woman."

Quit acting like you don't understand this.   
And again, you're arbitrarily drawing a line. From the beginning of the US in several states the rule for marriage was two people, opposite gender, at or past age of consent, not closely related, same race. Those rules have changed over the years. Age of consent has been revised, several states allow cousins to marry, race is no longer considered, and now eleven states allow SSM.

There's nothing special about the gender requirement. It is/was a rule just like the race requirement.
6/16/2013 8:02 PM

I'm not drawing a line.  The line was drawn several hundred years ago.  It was the "one man, one woman" line.

6/16/2013 8:40 PM
Posted by genghisxcon on 6/16/2013 7:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2013 4:09:00 PM (view original):
Except "one man/one woman" has never been a "restriction".  It's been a fundamental and universally consistent attribute of marriage since the beginning of human culture and civilization.

You cannot make a good faith argument that that has not been the case for thousands of years.
Irrelevant, but also false. Ever heard of polygamy?

And regarding "thousands of years," none of us were around then. Certainly the earliest forms of marriage predate recorded history. For all we know, some societies had something akin to gay marriage.

But again, that's simply irrelevant. The issue isn't what was done in the past, but what we should do in our society. Should we deny a segment of our society the same rights the rest enjoy, just because some people can't deal with changes that don't even have any substantial effect on their lives?
Polygamy is still one man/one woman per marriage.  It's just multiple marriages that are in effect at a time rather than one and only one.

Unless you can find me an example of polygamous marriages in which one person is taking multiple spouses in a single marriage.

Concerning history: I suppose we could speculate that some societies allowed marriages between people and apple trees, or some such nonsense.  I would think that some notation of such such marriages would have been discovered by now.  But there hasn't.  Just as there are no historical notations of gay marriage in recorded history prior to the current time.
6/16/2013 8:48 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2013 8:02:00 PM (view original):

I'm not drawing a line.  The line was drawn several hundred years ago.  It was the "one man, one woman" line.

Among many other lines, same race, for example.
6/16/2013 8:50 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2013 7:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2013 6:10:00 PM (view original):
So what?  You're making up **** or being intentionally obtuse again.

One man, one woman was the generally accepted definition of marriage since the US was formed(before, actually, but we're talking about the US now).   States added restrictions, like race, because they didn't want mixed races.   However, it has never changed, or been altered by any form of government, from "one man, one woman."

Quit acting like you don't understand this.   
And again, you're arbitrarily drawing a line. From the beginning of the US in several states the rule for marriage was two people, opposite gender, at or past age of consent, not closely related, same race. Those rules have changed over the years. Age of consent has been revised, several states allow cousins to marry, race is no longer considered, and now eleven states allow SSM.

There's nothing special about the gender requirement. It is/was a rule just like the race requirement.
Seriously.

Find me a law "from the beginning of the US" in any state in which marriage was specifically defined as "two people, opposite gender".

Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN UNDERSTOOD as between a man and a woman.  Not "two people, provided they are opposite genders".

The more you keep repeating yourself, the stupider you sound.
6/16/2013 8:50 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2013 8:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2013 8:02:00 PM (view original):

I'm not drawing a line.  The line was drawn several hundred years ago.  It was the "one man, one woman" line.

Among many other lines, same race, for example.
Nope.  Try again.

"One man, one woman" has been the constant.    There may have been other restrictions but there has only be one constant.   Care to guess what it is?
6/16/2013 10:32 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2013 8:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2013 7:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2013 6:10:00 PM (view original):
So what?  You're making up **** or being intentionally obtuse again.

One man, one woman was the generally accepted definition of marriage since the US was formed(before, actually, but we're talking about the US now).   States added restrictions, like race, because they didn't want mixed races.   However, it has never changed, or been altered by any form of government, from "one man, one woman."

Quit acting like you don't understand this.   
And again, you're arbitrarily drawing a line. From the beginning of the US in several states the rule for marriage was two people, opposite gender, at or past age of consent, not closely related, same race. Those rules have changed over the years. Age of consent has been revised, several states allow cousins to marry, race is no longer considered, and now eleven states allow SSM.

There's nothing special about the gender requirement. It is/was a rule just like the race requirement.
Seriously.

Find me a law "from the beginning of the US" in any state in which marriage was specifically defined as "two people, opposite gender".

Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN UNDERSTOOD as between a man and a woman.  Not "two people, provided they are opposite genders".

The more you keep repeating yourself, the stupider you sound.
Yet gay marriage exists right now and it has for years. It seems like the world didn't end when the gender restriction was removed. The definition of marriage now includes same sex couples along with interracial couples.
6/16/2013 10:33 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2013 8:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2013 8:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2013 8:02:00 PM (view original):

I'm not drawing a line.  The line was drawn several hundred years ago.  It was the "one man, one woman" line.

Among many other lines, same race, for example.
Nope.  Try again.

"One man, one woman" has been the constant.    There may have been other restrictions but there has only be one constant.   Care to guess what it is?
Same race was also a constant for 200 years. And then the definition changed.
6/16/2013 11:08 PM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2013 10:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2013 8:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2013 7:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2013 6:10:00 PM (view original):
So what?  You're making up **** or being intentionally obtuse again.

One man, one woman was the generally accepted definition of marriage since the US was formed(before, actually, but we're talking about the US now).   States added restrictions, like race, because they didn't want mixed races.   However, it has never changed, or been altered by any form of government, from "one man, one woman."

Quit acting like you don't understand this.   
And again, you're arbitrarily drawing a line. From the beginning of the US in several states the rule for marriage was two people, opposite gender, at or past age of consent, not closely related, same race. Those rules have changed over the years. Age of consent has been revised, several states allow cousins to marry, race is no longer considered, and now eleven states allow SSM.

There's nothing special about the gender requirement. It is/was a rule just like the race requirement.
Seriously.

Find me a law "from the beginning of the US" in any state in which marriage was specifically defined as "two people, opposite gender".

Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN UNDERSTOOD as between a man and a woman.  Not "two people, provided they are opposite genders".

The more you keep repeating yourself, the stupider you sound.
Yet gay marriage exists right now and it has for years. It seems like the world didn't end when the gender restriction was removed. The definition of marriage now includes same sex couples along with interracial couples.
So there never was a law that defined marriage specifically as "two people, but opposite gender"?  One man, one woman was generally assumed and understood?

Regardless, as you have pointed out many times in this thread (i.e., with respect to anti-miscegenation), laws on the books don't necessarily make a definition "correct".  And if they are eventually deemed to be "incorrect", they can and should be revoked.

Clearly, the long-standing, universally defined and commonly accepted definition of marriage has been bastardized in recent years.  Seems like restoring the correct definition is in order because, as you have pointed out, there is a precedent for doing that.
6/16/2013 11:07 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2013 10:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2013 8:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2013 8:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2013 8:02:00 PM (view original):

I'm not drawing a line.  The line was drawn several hundred years ago.  It was the "one man, one woman" line.

Among many other lines, same race, for example.
Nope.  Try again.

"One man, one woman" has been the constant.    There may have been other restrictions but there has only be one constant.   Care to guess what it is?
Same race was also a constant for 200 years. And then the definition changed.
Interracial marriages were not unheard of throughout the course of human history.

SSM pretty much has been.  It's a recent phenomenon.
6/16/2013 11:33 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2013 11:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2013 10:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2013 8:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2013 7:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2013 6:10:00 PM (view original):
So what?  You're making up **** or being intentionally obtuse again.

One man, one woman was the generally accepted definition of marriage since the US was formed(before, actually, but we're talking about the US now).   States added restrictions, like race, because they didn't want mixed races.   However, it has never changed, or been altered by any form of government, from "one man, one woman."

Quit acting like you don't understand this.   
And again, you're arbitrarily drawing a line. From the beginning of the US in several states the rule for marriage was two people, opposite gender, at or past age of consent, not closely related, same race. Those rules have changed over the years. Age of consent has been revised, several states allow cousins to marry, race is no longer considered, and now eleven states allow SSM.

There's nothing special about the gender requirement. It is/was a rule just like the race requirement.
Seriously.

Find me a law "from the beginning of the US" in any state in which marriage was specifically defined as "two people, opposite gender".

Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN UNDERSTOOD as between a man and a woman.  Not "two people, provided they are opposite genders".

The more you keep repeating yourself, the stupider you sound.
Yet gay marriage exists right now and it has for years. It seems like the world didn't end when the gender restriction was removed. The definition of marriage now includes same sex couples along with interracial couples.
So there never was a law that defined marriage specifically as "two people, but opposite gender"?  One man, one woman was generally assumed and understood?

Regardless, as you have pointed out many times in this thread (i.e., with respect to anti-miscegenation), laws on the books don't necessarily make a definition "correct".  And if they are eventually deemed to be "incorrect", they can and should be revoked.

Clearly, the long-standing, universally defined and commonly accepted definition of marriage has been bastardized in recent years.  Seems like restoring the correct definition is in order because, as you have pointed out, there is a precedent for doing that.
What direction do you *really* think this issue is going? The expansion of liberty almost always wins out.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.