View Full Version : California: Federal Court Overturns Prop 8
Magic_Salad0892
08-04-10, 23:07
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html
A turn for better civil rights equality.
state interference in religious and business matters somehow leads to "civil rights equality?"
Magic_Salad0892
08-04-10, 23:24
state interference in religious and business matters somehow leads to "civil rights equality?"
The separation of church and state does.
The separation of church and state does.
What is "separation of church and state"? And why do you feel that that is justified?
pilotguyo540
08-04-10, 23:29
The separation of church and state does.
The separation of church and state is a very difficult line to find in the first amendment.
Stealing the vote from the people is treason and should be dealt with accordingly.
The separation of church and state is a very difficult line to find in the first amendment.
You jumped the gun here dude. He never mentioned the 1A or Constitution.
Belmont31R
08-04-10, 23:36
state interference in religious and business matters somehow leads to "civil rights equality?"
Yes, and the only interfering that was going on was not allowing two consenting adults to marry because it doesn't conform to the popular religion.
Last I checked marriage is not just a Christian thing, and I don't want one religion's ideas about what marriage is to apply to everyone. I can't stand the religious side of "conservatism" because its just as tyrannical as liberalism is. Forcing people by way of law to conform to your religious views? One reason Id never live in the Bible Belt. I don't want a bunch of religious people telling me how to live my life based on their views of religion they push through as "law".
My marriage is defined by myself, my wife, and the vows we took. Just because there are other marriage customs out there such as polygamy, arranged marriages, child marriages, etc doesn't mean to me my marriage is any less than what it is. The same would hold true for two dudes, and I don't want the gov approving who can marry and who cannot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html
A turn for better civil rights equality.
Your title is wrong. The Supreme Court had nothing to do with this. It was a Federal Court.
I believe the California Supreme Court already upheld Prop 8 (?)
Magic_Salad0892
08-04-10, 23:40
What is "separation of church and state"? And why do you feel that that is justified?
The campaign was donated 22 million dollars of which was given from the Mormon Church, who then lied about it. The LDS church did the same thing in Hawaii, forming a coalition with the Catholic church donating thousands of dollars to the gay marriage ban, and one of the heads of their push was the Head of the Department of Education. I am explaining it very poorly, but the research can be done.
Why do I feel it is justified? I don't understand why sexuality makes your family invalid. I don't feel that marriage has anything to do with God, but it does involve rights that a straight couple would get.
Marriage, power of attorney (I don't remember the term used when a marital partner suffers a terminal illness), etc.
Yes, and the only interfering that was going on was not allowing two consenting adults to marry because it doesn't conform to the popular religion.
Actually not. While many of the people in favor of limiting marriage to one man and one woman are coming from a particular religious angle. There are lots of non religious reasons to restrict it.
If you look at societies throughout time, it has been defined as being between man and woman. Sometimes in multiples of one side or the other.
Children do best when raised with a mother and a father [this has been shown countless times]. Marriage was instituted by man as a way of providing for that if you go back in time and see the evolution of the concept of marriage.
Producing children is important for a people's survival and protecting that production of children is of compelling societal interest for the survival of that society.
So same sex marriage fails historically and from a social standpoint of protecting the survival mechanism of the society.
--
Something along those lines is the argumentation that is totally independent of religion.
Magic_Salad0892
08-04-10, 23:42
Your title is wrong. The Supreme Court had nothing to do with this. It was a Federal Court.
I believe the California Supreme Court already upheld Prop 8 (?)
I'll change the title. Sorry for the error.
ETA: I can't. Sorry anyway.
pilotguyo540
08-04-10, 23:46
Here is the way I understand it. Homosexuals are already afforded all of the protections of marriage through civil union. Marriage is a religious (or at least began as) covenant. I am not homophobic, but I think the state has already given homosexuals equality in civil and legal matters. Marriage should stay a churches decision.
if it seriously has to come down to siblings, pedophiles and cats and dogs, we need to do away with the religious union of marriage as a governmentally recognized and beneficial institution.
if you want to offer some benefit to two people making some kind of temporary, indefinite commitment to each other, do civil unions. 'cause marriage is just a ****in joke to these cock suckers- one more way they can eat away at anything resembling decency.
as to the "separation of church and state," you're obviously not versed on the origins of that statement. do some reading, my friend.
The campaign was donated 22 million dollars of which was given from the Mormon Church, who then lied about it. The LDS church did the same thing in Hawaii, forming a coalition with the Catholic church donating thousands of dollars to the gay marriage ban, and one of the heads of their push was the Head of the Department of Education. I am explaining it very poorly, but the research can be done.
You missed the point of the question.
However, please show me research that shows that the LDS Church (Mormons) organization donated any money to the cause. I can believe that individual members of the church donated to the cause and rallied together to fight for what they believe in, but I have no faith that your statement is in the least bit correct.
Why do I feel it is justified?
Again, you missed the question. The question was
What is "separation of church and state"? And why do you feel that that is justified?
So, why did you mention "separation of church and state" and why do you feel that that concept is justified legally?
I don't understand why sexuality makes your family invalid. I don't feel that marriage has anything to do with God, but it does involve rights that a straight couple would get.
Marriage, power of attorney (I don't remember the term used when a marital partner suffers a terminal illness), etc.
I'll change the title. Sorry for the error.
ETA: I can't. Sorry anyway.
if you click "go advanced" or something like that, it'll let you change the title.
Magic_Salad0892
08-04-10, 23:48
Actually not. While many of the people in favor of limiting marriage to one man and one woman are coming from a particular religious angle. There are lots of non religious reasons to restrict it.
If you look at societies throughout time, it has been defined as being between man and woman. Sometimes in multiples of one side or the other.
Children do best when raised with a mother and a father [this has been shown countless times]. Marriage was instituted by man as a way of providing for that if you go back in time and see the evolution of the concept of marriage.
Producing children is important for a people's survival and protecting that production of children is of compelling societal interest for the survival of that society.
So same sex marriage fails historically and from a social standpoint of protecting the survival mechanism of the society.
--
Something along those lines is the argumentation that is totally independent of religion.
Why do you feel as though that would effect homosexual relationships happening at all? They would still be in consensual relationships, just not married.
I don't want to seem rude: but banning homosexual union wont make them go away, or reproduce. (Many homosexual males are sperm doners, I don't know your stance on artificial insemination, totally different argument.)
rickrock305
08-04-10, 23:55
Actually not. While many of the people in favor of limiting marriage to one man and one woman are coming from a particular religious angle. There are lots of non religious reasons to restrict it.
If you look at societies throughout time, it has been defined as being between man and woman. Sometimes in multiples of one side or the other.
Children do best when raised with a mother and a father [this has been shown countless times]. Marriage was instituted by man as a way of providing for that if you go back in time and see the evolution of the concept of marriage.
Producing children is important for a people's survival and protecting that production of children is of compelling societal interest for the survival of that society.
So same sex marriage fails historically and from a social standpoint of protecting the survival mechanism of the society.
--
Something along those lines is the argumentation that is totally independent of religion.
thats a pretty silly argument. letting gay people get married is a threat to the survival mechanism of society? so, if gay people can get married we're all going to turn gay? :D strange thinking there.
Why do you feel as though that would effect homosexual relationships happening at all? They would still be in consensual relationships, just not married.
Did I ever come out against homosexual unions? If two guys (or 5 guys) want to live together and pool their resources and get off with each other, that is their right. And if they want to make a contract with each other, they can do that. And the law should conceivably respect those contracts at a certain level (which I have no idea at)
I don't want to seem rude: but banning homosexual union wont make them go away, or reproduce. (Many homosexual males are sperm doners, I don't know your stance on artificial insemination, totally different argument.)
I did not say to ban homosexual unions. Some sort of civil unions is probably an appropriate response legally. I have not thought through all the ramifications which is why I use words like "probably" but in principle I have no issue with a civil union.
And I have no feelings on artificial insemination though I do think that a child should not be handicapped from birth by being born to a homosexual couple or a single woman. (Again, research shows that a child does better being raised by a mom and a dad).
thats a pretty silly argument. letting gay people get married is a threat to the survival mechanism of society? so, if gay people can get married we're all going to turn gay? :D strange thinking there.
Sorry, fail. I did not say that.
I said affording protection to the survival mechanism. Ie, favoritism to those mechanisms which promote the survival of the society.
Belmont31R
08-05-10, 00:00
Actually not. While many of the people in favor of limiting marriage to one man and one woman are coming from a particular religious angle. There are lots of non religious reasons to restrict it.
If you look at societies throughout time, it has been defined as being between man and woman. Sometimes in multiples of one side or the other.
Children do best when raised with a mother and a father [this has been shown countless times]. Marriage was instituted by man as a way of providing for that if you go back in time and see the evolution of the concept of marriage.
Producing children is important for a people's survival and protecting that production of children is of compelling societal interest for the survival of that society.
So same sex marriage fails historically and from a social standpoint of protecting the survival mechanism of the society.
--
Something along those lines is the argumentation that is totally independent of religion.
What percent of man/woman marriages end up in divorce?
So you better outlaw single parents.
I think we have more than enough people in the world gays marrying isn't going to have any significant impact. They already live together, and do everything else besides have a slip of paper that says they are married. You're acting like gay people don't already raise kids.
What percent of man/woman marriages end up in divorce?
So you better outlaw single parents.
Logical fallacy
I think we have more than enough people in the world gays marrying isn't going to have any significant impact. They already live together, and do everything else besides have a slip of paper that says they are married. You're acting like gay people don't already raise kids.
Actually I never said any of the above or act that way.
Because something happens does not mean that it has to be afforded special protections that were designed as a survival mechanism for a society.
Belmont31R
08-05-10, 00:05
if it seriously has to come down to siblings, pedophiles and cats and dogs, we need to do away with the religious union of marriage as a governmentally recognized and beneficial institution.
if you want to offer some benefit to two people making some kind of temporary, indefinite commitment to each other, do civil unions. 'cause marriage is just a ****in joke to these cock suckers- one more way they can eat away at anything resembling decency.
as to the "separation of church and state," you're obviously not versed on the origins of that statement. do some reading, my friend.
In quite a few states its already legal for a minor to marry a legal adult. So yes a 50YO male could marry a 16YO girl. They could have sex, have kids, etc. Some states allow marriage under 16 with court approval.
In quite a few states its already legal for a minor to marry a legal adult. So yes a 50YO male could marry a 16YO girl. They could have sex, have kids, etc. Some states allow marriage under 16 with court approval.
i'm missing your point
Belmont31R
08-05-10, 00:12
Logical fallacy
Actually I never said any of the above or act that way.
Because something happens does not mean that it has to be afforded special protections that were designed as a survival mechanism for a society.
Marriage is a survival mechanism?
Its not special protections. Its giving them the SAME slip of paper as a heterosexual couple would get. The people getting special protections before were the straight couples getting married, and gays were not given the same opportunities.
And, no, its not a logical fallacy.
Children do best when raised with a mother and a father [this has been shown countless times].
So what happens to a child when his straight parents get a divorce, and is then raised by the now single mom? Maybe sees his dad a few days a month because usually the mother gets custody, and the dad gets limited visitation rights. That goes against your comment of children do best when raised by a dad and mom.
Belmont31R
08-05-10, 00:13
i'm missing your point
You mentioned pedos, and there are already legal mechanisms in place in many states for people under 16 to get married.
rickrock305
08-05-10, 00:23
Sorry, fail. I did not say that.
I said affording protection to the survival mechanism. Ie, favoritism to those mechanisms which promote the survival of the society.
How does marriage, gay or straight, afford any protection to the survival mechanism? People are going to reproduce regardless. Marriage really has nothing to do with it.
Marriage is a survival mechanism?
Yes. For societies to survive they needed to have children. To protect children you needed to have stable families. To get stable families you needed to provide safety and protection for the mother and benefits for the father.
Marriage was how humans solved this. Go back 1000s and 1000s of years. Marriage came about as a societal survival mechanism. Marriage is found in almost every society in some form or another and the roots are always the same.
Its not special protections. Its giving them the SAME slip of paper as a heterosexual couple would get. The people getting special protections before were the straight couples getting married, and gays were not given the same opportunities.
Societies and states afforded special protections to families (traditional) in order to protect and nurture children which were the societies future. The reason you see no long lasting society that gave those same protections to gay couples is that societies did not need those couples to make children for the society to survive.
And, no, its not a logical fallacy.
au contraire. Saying you should not do something because it sometimes fails is a failure in logic
So what happens to a child when his straight parents get a divorce, and is then raised by the now single mom? Maybe sees his dad a few days a month because usually the mother gets custody, and the dad gets limited visitation rights. That goes against your comment of children do best when raised by a dad and mom.
No. It supports my statement. Children do best when raised by a dad and mom (there is actually research that supports this but I don't have a pointer handy as when I read about it I was not really interested in it so did not save it). What you described I cannot believe you would say was equal to having a mom and a dad. The situation you described happens. I don't think any reasonable person would say it is however desirable.
How does marriage, gay or straight, afford any protection to the survival mechanism? People are going to reproduce regardless. Marriage really has nothing to do with it.
Look at the history of humankind, societies of humans, and where marriage came from. Then come back and tell me that marriage has nothing to do with it.
You can also read my very short synopsis above if you want.
Marriage was developed and come out of a societal need for the society to survive. Very much so.
People may reproduce anyway, but the chance for those children to survive and reproduce themselves is much higher when they are actually raised by other humans. And child survival rate is highest with a mother and a father (men hunted and protected the family, women farmed and raised the children -- division of labor).
Belmont31R
08-05-10, 00:57
Yes. For societies to survive they needed to have children. To protect children you needed to have stable families. To get stable families you needed to provide safety and protection for the mother and benefits for the father.
Marriage was how humans solved this. Go back 1000s and 1000s of years. Marriage came about as a societal survival mechanism. Marriage is found in almost every society in some form or another and the roots are always the same.
Societies and states afforded special protections to families (traditional) in order to protect and nurture children which were the societies future. The reason you see no long lasting society that gave those same protections to gay couples is that societies did not need those couples to make children for the society to survive.
au contraire. Saying you should not do something because it sometimes fails is a failure in logic
No. It supports my statement. Children do best when raised by a dad and mom (there is actually research that supports this but I don't have a pointer handy as when I read about it I was not really interested in it so did not save it). What you described I cannot believe you would say was equal to having a mom and a dad. The situation you described happens. I don't think any reasonable person would say it is however desirable.
The majority of human existence has been without marriage.
And guess what? Gays are going to be gay even if they cannot get married. Its not going to change the amount of children that are born. While yes gays do not factually contribute children to society together raising children is not the only purpose of getting married, and really has nothing to do with children since marriage has no impact on biological function. People can create kids married or not.
Theres not really any purpose behind banning gay marriage that is really going to have an impact on anything. You cannot talk about survival but banning gay marriage isn't going to keep people from being gay, and its not helping the survival of our species. Gay people aren't going to go "well gee we cant get married so I think Ill go marry a female, and create the perfect family." Are you going to force people to be straight, and create kids? If not then banning gay marriage has zero effect on our survival because they are already not going to be producing kids. Denying them a slip of paper does what, exactly?
The majority of human existence has been without marriage.
actually, not really. Go back 1000s and 1000s of years. To the first modern humans. They paired off and worked together in marriage-like pairings.
And guess what? Gays are going to be gay even if they cannot get married. Its not going to change the amount of children that are born. While yes gays do not factually contribute children to society together raising children is not the only purpose of getting married, and really has nothing to do with children since marriage has no impact on biological function. People can create kids married or not.
never mind. I have described it multiple times. If you want to keep saying the same thing over and over, which in no way refutes what I said, you may. Go back and reread what I said. Marriage is all about children first and foremost. In modern society this is less obvious. Look at the history of mankind and of marriage and it will become obvious to you.
Theres not really any purpose behind banning gay marriage that is really going to have an impact on anything. You cannot talk about survival but banning gay marriage isn't going to keep people from being gay, and its not helping the survival of our species. Gay people aren't going to go "well gee we cant get married so I think Ill go marry a female, and create the perfect family." Are you going to force people to be straight, and create kids? If not then banning gay marriage has zero effect on our survival because they are already not going to be producing kids. Denying them a slip of paper does what, exactly?
see above.
Just for clarification. I did not say "survival of the species". I said "survival of the society."
Here it is in a nutshell:
Society gave special protections to marriage because it was vital for the proper raising up of the next generation of the society. Society did not give these special protections to gay pairings (which have probably been around since "Adam" [figuratively speaking] as well) because these pairings did not provide a benefit to society.
Marriage has been around since closer to the beginning of human kind. There were not slips of paper, but the concept of pairing off and forming family units has been. Look at almost every society today. Even the "primitive" people that they find living like stone age people in the middle of South America or where-ever. Most of these societies (I grant not all) have the concept of husband and wife and family pairings. The functional equivalent of marriage.
Is our society less needing of the "proper" raising of the next generation? I would argue that our modern society is in a greater need of that, not a lesser need of that. Just look at the voting habits of the young generation, the socialist crap, the moral relativity crap, etc that gets worse each generation. None of that is good for the society. Just look at Rome.
You mentioned pedos, and there are already legal mechanisms in place in many states for people under 16 to get married.
pedophiles are clinically defined as adults with sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. where, in this country, can you legally marry a 10 year old?
Belmont31R
08-05-10, 01:28
actually, not really. Go back 1000s and 1000s of years. To the first modern humans. They paired off and worked together in marriage-like pairings.
never mind. I have described it multiple times. If you want to keep saying the same thing over and over, which in no way refutes what I said, you may. Go back and reread what I said. Marriage is all about children first and foremost. In modern society this is less obvious. Look at the history of mankind and of marriage and it will become obvious to you.
see above.
Marriage has been around for a long time but humans have been around a lot longer unless you have some scientific facts unknown to the rest of the world.
The thing is there is no one definition of marriage, and most cultures have varying degrees of what that is. You have no right to say one is right, and one is wrong when that marriage has no impact on you personally. Gay marriage is not harming anyone it just doesnt conform to your beliefs of what it is. Marriage, even in the US, has evolved over time. Not all that long ago it wasn't all that uncommon for 13 and 14 year olds to get married. Its been common practice in many societies in history particularly due to the lower survival rates, and lower life span. Romans, at times, were getting married at 12 years old. Does it make it wrong? No. They were living in a different world just as we are living in a different world today, and cultures shift over time. If you want to go back into the past to define marriage like having kids why not start making 12 year old marriages common place. After all girls can start getting pregnant around that time, and the older you get the more likely a child is to have birth defects. Women also start becoming less fertile around age 30.
So no you nor history get to decide what marriage is, and what customs must surround it. I personally don't want history to tell me what marriage is because girls used to get married out at what is now a child sex crime. My marriage is between my wife and I....not my wife, myself, the state to tell me what morality must surround us. I don't need nor want the state telling me much less anyone else what marriage is or isnt.
And yes it is primarily a Christian based standard you are trying to force onto other people. Polygamy, arranged marriages, and "child" marriages are all relatively common outside of Christian dominated nations. Traditional Christian type marriages is not the only method in the world you know.
Belmont31R
08-05-10, 01:30
pedophiles are clinically defined as adults with sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. where, in this country, can you legally marry a 10 year old?
Read through the list: http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm
More than a couple states allow minor marriages, and marriage under age 16 with court approval.
which is why "marriage" shouldn't even be a governmentally recognized institution. the sanctity, the importance, the intent behind, the purpose of marriage has all gone to shit. how many queers are going to want to get "married" when it goes back to nothing more than a purely judeo-christian term used to describe the joining of a man and woman before God?
if there's to be any benefit for two people to enter into a contract to share economic, parental, and liability responsibilities, call it a "civil union" for gays and straights, and leave marriage the hell alone.
Read through the list: http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm
More than a couple states allow minor marriages, and marriage under age 16 with court approval.
that's all fine and well, but this really doesn't have anything to do with anything.
Marriage has been around for a long time but humans have been around a lot longer unless you have some scientific facts unknown to the rest of the world.
I did say "modern" humans. I would bet that these modern humans paired off even in their early stages of society building.
The thing is there is no one definition of marriage, and most cultures have varying degrees of what that is. You have no right to say one is right, and one is wrong when that marriage has no impact on you personally. Gay marriage is not harming anyone it just doesnt conform to your beliefs of what it is. Marriage, even in the US, has evolved over time. Not all that long ago it wasn't all that uncommon for 13 and 14 year olds to get married. Its been common practice in many societies in history particularly due to the lower survival rates, and lower life span. Romans, at times, were getting married at 12 years old. Does it make it wrong? No. They were living in a different world just as we are living in a different world today, and cultures shift over time. If you want to go back into the past to define marriage like having kids why not start making 12 year old marriages common place. After all girls can start getting pregnant around that time, and the older you get the more likely a child is to have birth defects. Women also start becoming less fertile around age 30.
what is your point? In almost all cases, marriage in all the societies you mentioned, while varying in detail, are all man/woman. You can not find a long lasting society that granted these special privileges that were granted to marriage between a man and a woman to other sorts of pairings such as homosexual pairings.
So no you nor history get to decide what marriage is, and what customs must surround it. I personally don't want history to tell me what marriage is because girls used to get married out at what is now a child sex crime. My marriage is between my wife and I....not my wife, myself, the state to tell me what morality must surround us. I don't need nor want the state telling me much less anyone else what marriage is or isnt.
Hate to break it to you but your marriage is between you and your wife with the state's blessing. I have not heard of any place that does not require a marriage license and a person legal to marry you to do the honors (justice of the peace, clergy, etc as recognized by the govt).
I am pointing out that history shows us what marriage is and why it came to be and that it is not a Christian custom being forced on you. The "State" unfortunately represents our society today and hence has a compelling interest in defining marriage to its benefit.
And yes it is primarily a Christian based standard you are trying to force onto other people. Polygamy, arranged marriages, and "child" marriages are all relatively common outside of Christian dominated nations. Traditional Christian type marriages is not the only method in the world you know.
None of the ones you mention, polygamist, arranged, or child, are in violation of the marriage I mentioned. None of those in any society, christian or muslim or animist or shinto or without religion, where the society lasted, have been gay marriages. I said that marriage has always been (in enduring societies) something that was recognized as special and to be fostered and protected (through custom, law, norms, however the society operated) as a union of a man and a woman.
Belmont31R
08-05-10, 01:36
which is why "marriage" shouldn't even be a governmentally recognized institution. the sanctity, the importance, the intent behind, the purpose of marriage has all gone to shit. how many queers are going to want to get "married" when it goes back to nothing more than a purely judeo-christian term used to describe the joining of a man and woman before God?
if there's to be any benefit for two people to enter into a contract to share economic, parental, and liability responsibilities, call it a "civil union" for gays and straights, and leave marriage the hell alone.
Marriage is not entirely a Christian idea. In fact its been around as a societal and legal doctrine long before Christianity popped up....in fact by a few thousand years at least.
Im not Christian but it doesn't mean Im not married. Fortunately for me, I guess, since I married a woman I don't have the Christian brigade running around defining my marriage for me.
Marriage is not entirely a Christian idea. In fact its been around as a societal and legal doctrine long before Christianity popped up....in fact by a few thousand years at least.
Im not Christian but it doesn't mean Im not married. Fortunately for me, I guess, since I married a woman I don't have the Christian brigade running around defining my marriage for me.
the Bible starts with "In the beginning..." in case you forgot.
you argue from your corner, i argue from mine. you can expect nothing less.
Marriage is not entirely a Christian idea. In fact its been around as a societal and legal doctrine long before Christianity popped up....in fact by a few thousand years at least.
Exactly. And always recognized as being between a man and a woman. Never in another context (in enduring societies).
Im not Christian but it doesn't mean Im not married. Fortunately for me, I guess, since I married a woman I don't have the Christian brigade running around defining my marriage for me.
The Christian Brigade is not defining your marriage or anyone elses. Society throughout history has already defined it. The Gay Brigade is the one running around trying to redefine it to fit their standards.
thopkins22
08-05-10, 01:42
I'm generally far more concerned by the parental skills of millions of heterosexual family units and single parents, than those possessed by homosexual couples. The sanctity of heterosexual marriage is a complete and total joke...the notion that this is somehow going to further erode that is like focusing on a fly in a room of cow dung.
There's a lesbian couple that live down the block from me. They own firearms, are fiscally conservative, place a priority on the education of the children they have from a previous heterosexual marriage(one of them didn't always identify as gay,) and are generally good people. A little farther down the block is a heterosexual marriage with kids that I'm ashamed live in my neighborhood, the parents of course don't spend time with them etc....
As far as handicapping the children from birth should we outlaw sexual relations between separate races? The mixed race children will undoubtedly face discrimination and identity issues as a result right? Perhaps stupid irresponsible people shouldn't be allowed to procreate either...identify them however you like. At what point are we just coming up with ways to justify discrimination(not focused at any of you here, I wouldn't have jumped in if I felt that was the case)?
The easy answer is that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.
Belmont31R
08-05-10, 01:50
I did say "modern" humans. I would bet that these modern humans paired off even in their early stages of society building.
what is your point? In almost all cases, marriage in all the societies you mentioned, while varying in detail, are all man/woman. You can not find a long lasting society that granted these special privileges that were granted to marriage between a man and a woman to other sorts of pairings such as homosexual pairings.
And you have proof the the reasons these societies were long lasting is because they didn't allow gays to marry? Thats the secret to a long lasting society? :rolleyes:
Hate to break it to you but your marriage is between you and your wife with the state's blessing. I have not heard of any place that does not require a marriage license and a person legal to marry you to do the honors (justice of the peace, clergy, etc as recognized by the govt).
You get a marriage license for legal purposes. I didn;t consider myself married until the ceremony not when I was handed a piece of paper. I don't really consider a license as what defines a marriage, anyways.
I am pointing out that history shows us what marriage is and why it came to be and that it is not a Christian custom being forced on you. The "State" unfortunately represents our society today and hence as a compelling interest in defining marriage to its benefit.
If history shows us what marriage is then you are cool with 30 and 40 year olds marrying young teen girls?
None of the ones you mention, polygamist, arranged, or child, are in violation of the marriage I mentioned. None of those in any society, christian or muslim or animist or shinto or without religion, where the society lasted, have been gay marriages. I said that marriage has always been (in enduring societies) something that was recognized as special and to be fostered and protected (through custom, law, norms, however the society operated) as a union of a man and a woman.
And our society is recognizing that gays can marry through law. Customs and norms change with the times. Just like the 2nd Amendment was incorporated into the states in the last 2 months.
Mine in red.
Also I didn't soley marry my wife to have kids. Quite a few other reasons, and even if we didn't have kids I wouldn't consider it any less of a marriage. If creating kids is the main reason to marry then why should it matter who we marry as long as we can biologically have a kid? The fact gays cannot does not mean they cannot have a personally fulfilling marriage by themselves. There are plenty of straight couples who get married, and never have kids.
I'm generally far more concerned by the parental skills of millions of heterosexual family units and single parents, than those possessed by homosexual couples. The sanctity of heterosexual marriage is a complete and total joke...the notion that this is somehow going to further erode that is like focusing on a fly in a room of cow dung.
There's a lesbian couple that live down the block from me. They own firearms, are fiscally conservative, place a priority on the education of the children they have from a previous heterosexual marriage(one of them didn't always identify as gay,) and are generally good people. A little farther down the block is a heterosexual marriage with kids that I'm ashamed live in my neighborhood, the parents of course don't spend time with them etc....
Please, what is your point? no one is saying that we should take kids away from their parents, even if the parents get divorced or take on a different lifestyle.
And no one claims that all heterosexual couples are cotton candy and ice cream either. Lots of bad examples out there.
That does not change the fact that children do better in mom/dad complete families than not and we should do our best to encourage that sort of family and not handicap the kids from birth by not allowing them the chance of that.
As far as handicapping the children from birth should we outlaw sexual relations between separate races? The mixed race children will undoubtedly face discrimination and identity issues as a result right?
less and less likely. My kids (caucasian / asian mix) do not face discrimination that I have seen. They are not old enough to worry about identity issues but I doubt that will be an issue.
Perhaps stupid irresponsible people shouldn't be allowed to procreate either...identify them however you like.
We should discourage people from procreating when they are not able to provide a stable home. I am not sure how you can stop it but it should not be encouraged. Trojan is your friend.
however, don't fall into the logical fallacy that has already been manifested here:
Just because something does not always provide perfect results does not mean that that something is not worth pursuing
At what point are we just coming up with ways to justify discrimination(not focused at any of you here, I wouldn't have jumped in if I felt that was the case)?
This has nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with how society has evolved (and our society is just an extension of this historical society) and its promotion of stabilizing features.
The easy answer is that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.
Historically that is impossible. Government has (unfortunately) become the face of society and society has determined (historically) that it wants to promote stable families as the future of the society.
thopkins22
08-05-10, 02:05
Please, what is your point? no one is saying that we should take kids away from their parents, even if the parents get divorced or take on a different lifestyle.
And no one claims that all heterosexual couples are cotton candy and ice cream either. Lots of bad examples out there.
That does not change the fact that children do better in mom/dad complete families than not and we should do our best to encourage that sort of family and not handicap the kids from birth by not allowing them the chance of that.Does having legal prohibitions against homosexual marriage encourage or discourage successful mom/dad families? Or does it have no effect on those, since gay people aren't having children on any kind of serious scale? Or are we assuming that kids will see gay people getting married and adopting children and then saying, "Screw getting married to a whiny girl, I'm going gay and having children that way." I know that's a stretch...but I don't see a boogeyman here.
There are appalling numbers of children who spend the entire eighteen years of their youth in the system. I guess I just don't see the problem with letting them be adopted by caring and stable gay couples.
less and less likely. My kids (caucasian / asian mix) do not face discrimination that I have seen. They are not old enough to worry about identity issues but I doubt that will be an issue.My point exactly! It probably won't be an issue worth noting over all the other things kids have to deal with.
Belmont31R
08-05-10, 02:08
Exactly. And always recognized as being between a man and a woman. Never in another context (in enduring societies).
The Christian Brigade is not defining your marriage or anyone elses. Society throughout history has already defined it. The Gay Brigade is the one running around trying to redefine it to fit their standards.
Once again when are you going to start promoting teen marriages since that has been more common than not in history, and polygamy while you are at it. Like it or not but cultures change, and so are we.
The Christian brigade is the one who has attempted to define what marriage is today. History? So when is your church going to start marrying 12 year olds off to 30 and 40 year old men as was common in history even in the US. At my satellite tech job I met a lady here in Texas who got married at 14 years old, and she was in her 60's, maybe. Society as you put it redefined what marriage is, and no court is going to be marrying off pre-teens and 13/14/15 year old girls today.
BTW you should do some research because a quick google search will show quite a few long lasting societies that recognized gay marriage. A few Chinese dynasties including Ming, and there was even a Roman emperor who married one of his male slaves. It wasnt outlawed there until Constantine. Wiki says two emperors had same sex marriage but I could only find info on one of them outside of Wiki. Both the Roman Empire, and Ming dynasty were long lasting.
Mine in red.
please do not do it that way. It makes it very hard to reply to your points. It is just as easy for you to use the QUOTE tags as the COLOR tags or however you change text color. But it makes it a lot harder for me.
And you have proof the the reasons these societies were long lasting is because they didn't allow gays to marry? Thats the secret to a long lasting society?
Where did I say that? I never said that. I only said that enduring societies have not recognized gay marriages. (I mentioned enduring so that someone does not find some societal offshoot somewhere that revolved around gay marriage for a short time before it died off)
You get a marriage license for legal purposes. I didn;t consider myself married until the ceremony not when I was handed a piece of paper. I don't really consider a license as what defines a marriage, anyways.
I did not say that. I did not say that marriage was defined as starting when you got the license. I said that the state was involved with your marriage and as proof of that mentioned that it required you to get a license AND that the marriage was officiated at by someone "blessed" by the state.
If history shows us what marriage is then you are cool with 30 and 40 year olds marrying young teen girls?
I do not see how that is relevant. I have already said that lots of different customs in terms of the details of marriage have been established in different societies. But the underlying man/woman thing is constant. Your question, again, is irrelevant. Most societies frown on that sort of thing today. Does not change the man/woman aspect.
And our society is recognizing that gays can marry through law. Customs and norms change with the times. Just like the 2nd Amendment was incorporated into the states in the last 2 months.
Society did not recognize that gays can marry. A small segment of society has been clamoring for it, not realizing what marriage is, and got a judge to grant them their wish.
Btw, their true motives come out when they reject the "civil union" solution, which provides them the same legal protections and advantages.
Society long ago established marriage as a man/woman thing in order to promote children raised in a stable environment. That does not guarantee that but it does encourage and promote that. There is a reason why society did that. It found it to work best throughout time. We have inherited that :trait: if you will in our society. If and when society really does come to accept gay marriage, it will accelerate the downfall of the society. There is historical precedence for that (when the focus was removed from traditional families and supporting such as the bedrock of society)
The 2A being incorporated has no relevance.
Also I didn't soley marry my wife to have kids. Quite a few other reasons, and even if we didn't have kids I wouldn't consider it any less of a marriage.
Again, irrelevant. There is some logical missteps here. Just because society established marriage as a foundation of a stable home to provide for children and the next generation, that in no way means that every marriage will result in children or that children are a requirement. (The law of averages makes it the more likely outcome of a marriage and supporting that outcome was of benefit to society)
If creating kids is the main reason to marry then why should it matter who we marry as long as we can biologically have a kid?
Because kids need to be raised in a stable family in order to be most fit to contribute to society. Yes, I know, this does not always happen. But that does not mean we should not try.
The fact gays cannot does not mean they cannot have a personally fulfilling marriage by themselves. There are plenty of straight couples who get married, and never have kids.
Marriage did not evolve in order to be emotionally fulfilling. I agree that is a good goal. However, that is a recent historical phenomenon and mostly a western one.
and it is totally irrelevant. It does not change or disprove anything I said.
I need to hit the sack. I am up way later than I should have been since my kid has an early morning swimming lesson that I am responsible for taking him to, since my wife is working tonight and will get home to sleep right before I have to leave to take him.
My whole point is that while many (probably most) supporters of Prop 8 and traditional marriage may come from a Judeo/Christian background (or muslim), the concept of marriage as a man and a woman and not any two or more people getting together is not based on a Christian dogma. Christian dogma may be supported by it but it has historical and societal roots and evolved over long periods of time to be of benefit to society and ignoring that and doing whatever we want is something we do at our peril. There is a reason it is why it is and it has nothing to do with the Christian Brigade trying to define your marriage. It is a societal foundation that leads to stability (along with other customs that evolved over time in society -- ie, it is not the only one). As we ignore these evolved societal traits that came about through long experience over 1000s and 1000s of years, we risks crashing as a society. Look around, it is already happening (with other societal norms we are ignoring that came about through long history and societal evolution)
I am going to bed. Good night!
Belmont31R
08-05-10, 02:14
Does having legal prohibitions against homosexual marriage encourage or discourage successful mom/dad families? Or does it have no effect on those, since gay people aren't having children on any kind of serious scale? Or are we assuming that kids will see gay people getting married and adopting children and then saying, "Screw getting married to a whiny girl, I'm going gay and having children that way." I know that's a stretch...but I don't see a boogeyman here.
There are appalling numbers of children who spend the entire eighteen years of their youth in the system. I guess I just don't see the problem with letting them be adopted by caring and stable gay couples.
My point exactly! It probably won't be an issue worth noting over all the other things kids have to deal with.
I don't see what the issue is either.
I, too, have a lesbian couple that are neighbors. They are older so kids would not be in the scene for them but I see no reason why they should not be allowed to get married. Its not going to have any affect on anything besides giving them the same legal status as my wife and I have.
My BIL's sister is lesbian, and has had a long term relationship. Im sure they'd want to raise kids, and they have been excellent around my kids as well as my niece and nephew. Im sure they would make good parents, and they wouldn't have any more problems than anyone else might face.
Once again when are you going to start promoting teen marriages since that has been more common than not in history, and polygamy while you are at it. Like it or not but cultures change, and so are we.
The Christian brigade is the one who has attempted to define what marriage is today. History? So when is your church going to start marrying 12 year olds off to 30 and 40 year old men as was common in history even in the US. At my satellite tech job I met a lady here in Texas who got married at 14 years old, and she was in her 60's, maybe. Society as you put it redefined what marriage is, and no court is going to be marrying off pre-teens and 13/14/15 year old girls today.
totally irrelevant.
BTW you should do some research because a quick google search will show quite a few long lasting societies that recognized gay marriage. A few Chinese dynasties including Ming, and there was even a Roman emperor who married one of his male slaves. It wasnt outlawed there until Constantine. Wiki says two emperors had same sex marriage but I could only find info on one of them outside of Wiki. Both the Roman Empire, and Ming dynasty were long lasting.
Were these marriages or just groupings/pairings? Greeks were big into the gay pairing thing too. And how widespread was it? An emperor or was it widespread through society?
And Rome fell (as did the Greeks).
really good night now!
variablebinary
08-05-10, 02:28
Why bother voting if a single judge can eradicate the will of the 7 million people
thopkins22
08-05-10, 02:37
Why bother voting if a single judge can eradicate the will of the 7 million people
I'd wager very similar statements were made in Chicago by the gun grabbers not long ago.;)
That can happen for a couple reasons. 1)We're supposed to be a republic. A majority cannot run roughshod over a minority. 2)We're a nation of laws(at least we're supposed to be,) if a law is passed that is contrary to the law of the land(in this case the Constitution,) it is dutifully trashed. It matters not how many people voted for it.
indeed.. there must be a process to override the tyranny of the majority. the Fathers knew people in large quantities produces moments of stupid, so they gave us moderation in the form of the judicial branch.
we have an unfortunate situation when he judicial branch ****s up... the fathers knew they might, so they also gave us the ability to amend, rather than scrap, our beloved Constitution.
Belmont31R
08-05-10, 02:44
please do not do it that way. It makes it very hard to reply to your points. It is just as easy for you to use the QUOTE tags as the COLOR tags or however you change text color. But it makes it a lot harder for me.
Where did I say that? I never said that. I only said that enduring societies have not recognized gay marriages. (I mentioned enduring so that someone does not find some societal offshoot somewhere that revolved around gay marriage for a short time before it died off)
I did not say that. I did not say that marriage was defined as starting when you got the license. I said that the state was involved with your marriage and as proof of that mentioned that it required you to get a license AND that the marriage was officiated at by someone "blessed" by the state.
I do not see how that is relevant. I have already said that lots of different customs in terms of the details of marriage have been established in different societies. But the underlying man/woman thing is constant. Your question, again, is irrelevant. Most societies frown on that sort of thing today. Does not change the man/woman aspect.
Society did not recognize that gays can marry. A small segment of society has been clamoring for it, not realizing what marriage is, and got a judge to grant them their wish.
Btw, their true motives come out when they reject the "civil union" solution, which provides them the same legal protections and advantages.
Society long ago established marriage as a man/woman thing in order to promote children raised in a stable environment. That does not guarantee that but it does encourage and promote that. There is a reason why society did that. It found it to work best throughout time. We have inherited that :trait: if you will in our society. If and when society really does come to accept gay marriage, it will accelerate the downfall of the society. There is historical precedence for that (when the focus was removed from traditional families and supporting such as the bedrock of society)
The 2A being incorporated has no relevance.
Again, irrelevant. There is some logical missteps here. Just because society established marriage as a foundation of a stable home to provide for children and the next generation, that in no way means that every marriage will result in children or that children are a requirement. (The law of averages makes it the more likely outcome of a marriage and supporting that outcome was of benefit to society)
Because kids need to be raised in a stable family in order to be most fit to contribute to society. Yes, I know, this does not always happen. But that does not mean we should not try.
Marriage did not evolve in order to be emotionally fulfilling. I agree that is a good goal. However, that is a recent historical phenomenon and mostly a western one.
and it is totally irrelevant. It does not change or disprove anything I said.
I need to hit the sack. I am up way later than I should have been since my kid has an early morning swimming lesson that I am responsible for taking him to, since my wife is working tonight and will get home to sleep right before I have to leave to take him.
My whole point is that while many (probably most) supporters of Prop 8 and traditional marriage may come from a Judeo/Christian background (or muslim), the concept of marriage as a man and a woman and not any two or more people getting together is not based on a Christian dogma. Christian dogma may be supported by it but it has historical and societal roots and evolved over long periods of time to be of benefit to society and ignoring that and doing whatever we want is something we do at our peril. There is a reason it is why it is and it has nothing to do with the Christian Brigade trying to define your marriage. It is a societal foundation that leads to stability (along with other customs that evolved over time in society -- ie, it is not the only one). As we ignore these evolved societal traits that came about through long experience over 1000s and 1000s of years, we risks crashing as a society. Look around, it is already happening (with other societal norms we are ignoring that came about through long history and societal evolution)
I am going to bed. Good night!
You are simply picking and choosing arguments to make a point, and ignoring which ones do not.
Like Ive said many times now since you brought history into this as your argument do you condone pre-teen and teen marriage? Would you be cool with a 30-40 year old man marrying a 12 year old? That was history but we no longer accept that in society. So you either have to condone 12 year old girls marrying 30 year old men (or older) or accept that society/customs/norms change with time. Gay marriage in the US is the next evolution of that just like we have evolved away from child marriages.
Some things have gotten worse and some things have gotten better. Its your opinion that gay marriage is detrimental to society but its just your opinion, and really has nothing to back it up.
What your argument does share with history is that religion has often been used as a tool through which to compel people to do certain things even if they do not believe in them. Go to the Bible Belt, and they try to do the same thing as people have been doing for better part of 2k years, and that is interject religious values into law to force people to adhere to their religious beliefs. In this case that is exactly what it is even if you are willing to admit it or not.
I don't even have a high opinion of homosexual people (doing another dude in the ass is disgusting) but I can at least get past my own judgements, and recognize there is more than one way to live life. We all have our own ambitions, desires, things that make us happy, etc.
In the end the only thing banning gay marriage does is protect the Christian idea of what marriage is. Kids? Has nothing to do with kids when they aren't going to be having them anyways, they already have kids from a straight marriage, artificial insemination, sperm donor, etc. Those things are already happening, and banning gay marriage does nothing to change any of that since the same exact things happen with straight couples. The only thing banning gay marriage does is not give them the same title as straight couples. They are already doing everything else besides getting married, and getting that paper.
Belmont31R
08-05-10, 02:49
totally irrelevant.
Were these marriages or just groupings/pairings? Greeks were big into the gay pairing thing too. And how widespread was it? An emperor or was it widespread through society?
And Rome fell (as did the Greeks).
really good night now!
No its not. You keep point to history as what marriage is yet are completely ignoring the fact child marriage was common place up until recently. Going to pick and choose what parts of history you want to use? If you are going to say history defines what marriage is then you either take all of it or none of it otherwise history has little to do with it.
Rome lasted a longer than we have. Id have to look into it more but gay marriage was not banned until Constantine, and the Roman Empire had been going hundreds of years before that which would lead one to believe it was practiced. Wide spread? Doubt it but doesn't mean it didn't happen. Also Rome fell AFTER gay marriage was banned.
Magic_Salad0892
08-05-10, 04:18
Belmont thank you for continuing your debate, long after my computer froze. D:
Thought I'd throw this in there:
Marriage was originally devised as a way to split up property.
A quick Google search would tell you that. Particularly in the 1400s, and 1700s.
variablebinary
08-05-10, 04:29
Belmont thank you for continuing your debate, long after my computer froze. D:
Thought I'd throw this in there:
Marriage was originally devised as a way to split up property.
A quick Google search would tell you that. Particularly in the 1400s, and 1700s.
I can assure you marriage existed long before the 1400's, and had nothing to do with property.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html
A turn for better civil rights equality.
Are you really comparing the struggles of African-Americans for equality (aka, the Civil Rights Movement) to that of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders? You know, an African-American can't hide the color of their skin (I know, what about Michael Jackson... :D ), but we don't "know" someone is a part of the "new black" unless they tell us. Honestly, I don't going around telling everyone I'm heterosexual, so why can't homosexuals and the like extend the same courtesy???
BTW, all of which already have the right to marry, just as you and I do. They just have to marry one person of the opposite gender and of legal age that is not too closely related to them by blood. Do you think bisexuals should be able to have two spouses? ;)
So, the Voter's have spoken, and then one person, a Judge, throws that all out???
Magic_Salad0892
08-05-10, 06:35
I can assure you marriage existed long before the 1400's, and had nothing to do with property.
I didn't say it originated in the 1400s. I just meant that from the best of my knowledge it was originated due to property ownership.
Magic_Salad0892
08-05-10, 06:38
Are you really comparing the struggles of African-Americans for equality (aka, the Civil Rights Movement) to that of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders? You know, an African-American can't hide the color of their skin (I know, what about Michael Jackson... :D ), but we don't "know" someone is a part of the "new black" unless they tell us. Honestly, I don't going around telling everyone I'm heterosexual, so why can't homosexuals and the like extend the same courtesy???
BTW, all of which already have the right to marry, just as you and I do. They just have to marry one person of the opposite gender and of legal age that is not too closely related to them by blood. Do you think bisexuals should be able to have two spouses? ;)
To be honest I can't understand how any black person voted for this. They of all people should know what it's like for the government to tell them who they are and aren't allowed to marry.
And by the way bisexuals having to spouses has more to do with polygamy. Which I don't agree with, and probably wouldn't vote on it one way or another.
Maybe for religious freedom and all that. (Mormons.)
Also, homosexuals telling everybody they're gay really doesn't have anything to do with their right to marry. I don't know what you were trying to bring up.
The ruling class knows whats best for us.
You guys are talking paste each other and no one is going to convert anyone else to their position.
Let it go.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.