Gratefully we are living in a time when no one considers women on par with animals mentally or physically.

It does not beg credulity, it is pretty normative in some social circles.

Though the discussion is about boundaries, definitions and expectations.

As for “The degree of interest in raising children is highly questionable” — well, it has been an expressed state interest by states for several thousand years. Sorry about that.

Finally, “I was not the one making the comparison” — no, you are the one bringing up an historical argument that did not originate with the LDS and attempting to misapply it as an attack on those who have paid attention to it, while misconstruing the essence of the discussion.

The essence, at least of my musings, is that we don’t have a good enough definition, which leads us into sidetrails like the one we are having right now, with people not understanding what application they have, other than to insult one group or the other.

Gays don’t deserve insults, they deserve thought and reflection. The same is true of the LDS.

But marriage needs more thought, consideration and eflection, and less rhetoric and anger.

Ok then. But can I, for arguments sake, or would you let me marry my sister? Or my cousin? (since Einstein did). We are both in our 30’s now and, although my first choice is to marry my mother, I would be better of with my sisiter because my mother can not have children anymore.

Just in case you want to know, we are all consenting adults, and we are all deeply in love since the day I was born, she’s my older sister, and we know each other very well since we have already lived together for more than two decades. And it would only be fair since I can marry my brother in MA.

Well, what would be your liberal culture leading LDS argument be?

It does license marriage. While you may wish to deflect my comment on the comparison of marriage between same gender adults and adults and animals, I was not the one making the comparison. Presumed members of the LDS faithful were doing that. And I find it very telling of what people really think about the issue. It begs credulity to suggest that a functional adult wanted to marry his dog. Sorry, I’m not buying it.

Generally, a state’s interest in marriage has had to do with inheritance and child raising, which is why tax codes provide for encouragement for having children and rearing them.

Taxation is invariably used as a tool to further other goals, and in support of other goals, not as a direct interest. Otherwise, why have any tax impact caused by marriage at all?

From a legal POV, it seems to go back to the argument of whether the state has an interest in marriage or not. To me, that is the right discussion in the political context. Not equal rights and not civil rights.

I’ll leave Greenman and Samuel to their discussion.

captainmelody I think the proclamation addresses what families are, but I’m not sure that is the same as defining what marriage is in more than a partial sense. Ask yourself, does the proclamation require, imply, or exclude polygamy, either serial or concurrent? Does it matter to the proclamation’s meaning? The definition is not complete.

Don’t you feel that the LDS Church as already defined what marriage is in its “The Family: A Proclamation to the World?”

I believe in the Churches eyes, and many of the members who support banning gay marriage, legislation against gay marriage is supporting what marriage is or at least what it should be.

Conversly, those members who do not support banning gay marriage typically have that position based on equal rights and entitlments for homosexuals.

Ultimately, what marriage is is going to to be different for each person.

But I hope gays do manage to legally marry in the near future. Then by following the same logic we can see some people marry their dogs or cats or some dudes marrying their pimped up car. Freedom for all I’d say.

I agree that using an “underlying social assumption” as a means for legal definition is a slippery slope as we continue to see. i would tend to think that polygamy is as legitimate as a form of marriage as any other as long as those who practice it can be fairly treated under the law and share the same benefits as others. This may be problematic from a tax standpoint alone, as many people could collectively marry and be recognized as one tax paying entity.

Actually, marriage already means what each person wants it to mean. The importance of fidelity within matrimony is hardly shared among all married people. And there is no civil law against adultery. I would suggest that marriage as a civil law concept has no “core” moral value at all. Nor should it, as a matter of civil law.

If I want a religious rite, or a social one, without benefits, then I can create my own qualifications (I just will not get benefits such as tax treatment, etc.). I’ve had gay friends who got married long ago (full weddings, etc.), and who consider themselves monogamously married, regardless of what others think, and whose legal rights come from domestic partnership trusts rather than from the government.

But, that goes to what is marriage and what qualifies one for marriage.

I think that it is important to recognize that whatever marriage was three thousand years ago, or even two hundred years ago, it is something different now. Just what it is, and what it should be, is a better discussion and debate to have first, before we argue over how someone qualifies for recognition of their marriage.

The underlying social assumption is that marriage is monogamous pair bonding. People see that, they recognize it as a relationship worth recognition. They see something else, they don’t see it as qualifying.

Occasionally they see polygamous pair bonding, and as long as it is exclusive (the “forsaking all others”) you have many societies throughout history that have recognized that as marriage as well.

What has not generally been recognized is the non-exclusive relationship.

Now, should that be the dividing line (which it is for most people, even if they don’t recognize it),with a secondary dividing line that anything that doesn’t threaten existing marriages is ok, if it does threaten them, it is not?

I think if we recognize the dividing lines people draw, we sometimes come to different conclusions.

I also think that articulating those dividing lines creates a better idea of what marriage is, an idea that has nothing to do with the sex or gender of those getting married, and a great deal to do with other behaviors.

But right now, and for most of human history, marriage was something that had to be qualified for. The basis for qualification differed, and it is those we are finding our society debating right now. But I think a better understanding of what we are reacting to might very well change the discussion to focus on things other than sex and gender, which may lead to a different understanding (or, it may not).

But lots of people are “partly human” as in having limited civil rights. Children, felons, etc. At one time, women were treated as partly human, as functioning under disabilities. By attending to definitions, that changed, I think very much for the better.

Perhaps other things might change for the better to if we shift the discussion.

But I don’t think we can have

(a) marriage means whatever each person wants it to mean; and
(b) marriage means that an individual has certain rights vis a vis the government and society that they did not have when they were not married

without the term losing meaning.

But does the term necessarily have to have the meanings that it currently has post prop 8 to embrace the core values it represents?

In the alternative, what meaning does it have without core values, and should it have any core values at all?

Must gay marriage be an aberration, or can it be a pair bonding unit the same as any other? A free floating entitlement is, indeed, one that should apply as much to the dog as anything else. A pair bonding unit obviously excludes the dog, I would think.

But, that does highlight the issue.