|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/10/2005 : 05:46:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
Holly crap! I can't believe I remembered my password.
Ok, 1st of all. The State has no business messing in peoples business. Marriage or what ever you want to call it, is a contract between two people. Handing out licenses, er, I mean selling pieces of paper to prove you want to live with and share your life with someone is just a way for the government to drain the people dry. (LOL, reminds me of the Catholic church selling those papers so you could get into heaven)
Next, I still like Gov. Arnold. There's just a lot of propaganda against him now on many issues. I think he's doing the right thing for the most part. The government needs to stop spending and he's putting them on a diet.
About the veto of this gay bill, he wants the people to decide in a vote. Now, doesn't that sound more fair, the way government is supposed to be? One man, one vote. Instead of the crazy politicians telling you what to do.
Just because it's morally wrong to stop gays from marrying, it's the right of a community to decide what they want.
Norma
Snake!!
Welcome back -- we've missed you!
You must tell us all about your SE Asia adventure...
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 05:54:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Marriage in this form has been going on for thousands of years.
Sorry... really it's been about 1200 years. I stand corrected.
I truly do not mean to offend, but the above statement is made out of ignorance.
-the most common form of marriage in all of human history is polygamy between one man and numerous women.
Where did you get that from?
Other types of arrangements have also existed in various human societies.
Of course.
-there are countries in Africa that now, and for thousands of years, have allowed homosexual marriage
We're talking about California here.
-homosexuality has existed in all human societies in history
Probably.
The current form of marriage is American society is NOT traditional.
tradition
A noun
1 custom, tradition
a specific practice of long standing.
Sounds like marriage is traditional to me.
Traditional western marriages may have been between one man and one woman, but they were also arranged, often involving a dowry (that is why in our contemporary ceremonies that father gives the bride away) and the social status and role of the two sexes was completely separate. (that is why the women vowed to “obey”, but men didn't.)
Modern marriages are often referred to distinctly as “love marriages”, ( never heard that one before )usually referring to an equal partnership based on their mutual consent based on their love for each other. It is THIS development that has opened the door for same-sex marriage because with men and women being equal partners, the concept of two men or two women in love being equal partners suddenly makes sense in the social framework.
We don't keep traditions for the sake of keeping traditions. When traditions are harmful, we get rid of them. Millions of homosexuals in this country want to live like anyone else in this culture. They do not want it to be called something else when they bind themselves in a lifelong partnership based on love. Some gays are religious and get married in churches and temples. And some are secular but have a symbolic wedding ceremony involving nonreligious rituals. Thousands are raising children as families right now. And these are not marriages?
The desire to call committed gay relationships something other than what we call the exact same type of relationship among heterosexuals is rooted in prejudice, plain and simple.
No. It's more in line with keeping the tradional meaning of marriage the way is. I don't have a prejudice towards homosexuals. In fact I know a few through work and friendships so please be a little more careful when you throw around accusations.
|
Just flying through space with the rest of you... |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 12:04:47 [Permalink]
|
Snake wrote: Handing out licenses, er, I mean selling pieces of paper to prove you want to live with and share your life with someone is just a way for the government to drain the people dry.
Well that sounds all nice and stuff, but it falls apart when you apply it to real life. The reason the legal marriage process is the way it is in this country is to save people money, not to drain them dry. (I'm not sure how a one-time cost of $25-$40 for a wedding license drains anyone dry.) The legal benefits of marriage benefits the whole of society by automatically making people who are married each other's next of kin with visitation rights, rights for spousal insurance, etc. And the process is simple enough for a monkey: go to city hall, apply for license, have justice of the peace sign license, done.
I heard this dip-head lawyer on NPR a couple months ago talking about how currently same-sex couples can get almost all the same rights of married couples through contracts (that's bull, BTW, one of the most important benefits is that recognized spouses are eligible for health insurance. Not to mention bringing foreign spouses from overseas. Neither of these can be obtained through contracts.) So the NPR interviewer, being a upper-middle-class pompous intellectual, of course, doesn't think to ask the obvious questions – how the hell are poor people going to afford a lawyer to draw up a contract, could an uneducated person do it themselves cheaply, and is it even going to occur to uneducated people to get a contract in the first place? And then this 20-year-old gay pizza deliver guy calls the show, and he sounds like he has no idea what's going on in politics and he's obviously totally confused about this contract law stuff (yeah, he was a typical young working dude) and he finally just says in a sad and exhausted voice, “I don't know about any of that stuff, but when people tell me I can't get married, they are telling me I'm less of a person.”
There is a solution to the marriage problem in America, and some activists have posed it, but unfortunately it hasn't had much of a following. The US government should do away with calling it “marriage” and have “civil unions” for all. My personal idea about how that should be enacted is this: First, people can have a symbolic wedding ceremony through their church or community or whatnot, and from that point on say they are “married”. Later, those people can apply for all the rights included with civil unions (what is now legal marriage) after they've either produced, adopted, or are fostering children while living together, or after they've lived together for a certain amount of time (this is called common law marriage in states that still have it).
About the veto of this gay bill, he wants the people to decide in a vote. Now, doesn't that sound more fair, the way government is supposed to be?
I completely agree with SubjectMatter's response to this.
But to add to it, no, it doesn't sound more fair. This is a human rights issue. Human rights issues should not be up for popular vote. There are people in California who are being legally discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. That's wrong. This legislation would affects gays, not straights, so I really don't give a flying poop what straight bigots have to say about it.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/10/2005 12:19:10 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 12:17:07 [Permalink]
|
I wrote:The current form of marriage is American society is NOT traditional.
CourseKnot wrote: tradition / A noun / 1 custom, tradition / a specific practice of long standing. /Sounds like marriage is traditional to me.
Did you miss the phrase “current form of”?
CourseKnot wrote: No. It's more in line with keeping the tradional meaning of marriage the way is.
You have missed the point of that post. I was saying that the current form of marriage could not be simply characterized as between one man and one woman. That in reality, there are other, more significant factor, that characterized marriage in our society. One of those factors was the liberation of women which caused the shift from arranged marriages to love marriages. And so the traditional meaning of marriage has already radically shifted. And since gay marriage is also a product of the social shift toward love marriages, there is no reason to exclude them except prejudice.
Maybe the reason you haven't heard of “love marriages” is because you haven't read about the history or nature of marriage in our society or read about the political issues going on in other countries that are now following in Western culture's footsteps. I first heard that term in an anthropology class. I read it again when I was reading a traveler's guide to South Korean culture. I've recently heard in during a show in NPR where a woman was talking about a book she's just written about how marriage in Western society has recently changed. If you google “love marriages” the first hit is an article about love marriages vs. arranged marriages in India. Here's an entry on the term in wikipedia (notice it doesn't include "one man" and "one woman" in its definition.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_marriages
Here's a question – WHY should we continue the tradition of marriage being between one man and one women, considering that a large percentage of people in our society today concerning that to be an insult? What is the value of keeping this particular tradition?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/10/2005 12:25:50 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 12:37:11 [Permalink]
|
I wrote-the most common form of marriage in all of human history is polygamy between one man and numerous women.
CourseKnot wrote: Where did you get that from?
I learned it years ago in an anthropology class. But this passage is from the first couple paragraphs defining “marriage” in Wikipedia: “Historically, most societies have sanctioned polygamy. The West is a major exception. Europe and the United States were monogamous cultures. This was in part a Germanic cultural tradition, a requirement of Christianity, and a mandate of Roman Law. However, Roman Law supported prostitution, concubinage, sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex, and sexual access to slaves. The Christian West formally banned these practices.”
So yeah, let's keep gay marriage illegal in support of our Christian heritage!
And yes, I realize that gay marriage wasn't a part of any of those pre-Christian societies, but again, that was because the concept of it doens't make sense in a culture where "marriage" is an unequal relationship between a man and his subjagated wife. Sexual equality has led to gay marriage - exactly why we should embrace it.
Here's the whole article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/10/2005 12:40:18 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 15:24:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
Holly crap! I can't believe I remembered my password.
Hello again Snake! Long time no see!  |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/10/2005 15:38:36 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 18:47:53 [Permalink]
|
Indeed, the whole thing stinks. From this article:...the governor opposes the legislation... because he thinks the matter should be decided by California's courts or its voters. So the thing Arnold wants to do is pass off this important legal matter to either a handful of people, thus obviating the "will of the people," or to mob rule. Either way, the representative republic is overruled (but they decided the wrong way for the Governor's backers, anyway). And Arnold will continue to deny that he voted "against" gays by vetoing the measure. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 18:49:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
There is a solution to the marriage problem in America, and some activists have posed it, but unfortunately it hasn't had much of a following. The US government should do away with calling it “marriage” (ed. from now on) and have “civil unions” for all.
Finally something I can agree with.
I could take out of context sentences from the Wikipedia subject of marriage and use them to support my opinion as you have done with yours but I don't care to start that game.
It's a good read though. |
Just flying through space with the rest of you... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 19:11:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by CourseKnot
I could take out of context sentences from the Wikipedia subject of marriage and use them to support my opinion as you have done with yours but I don't care to start that game.
Apparently, you're still missing the point, and getting smarmy like that isn't going to help.
Marriages of convenience also have a long tradition, both within the U.S. and outside of it. Perhaps we should decide that only such unions will be called "marriages," because of "tradition."
In all seriousness, if all you've got to base your opinion on is "well, that's the way it's been done most of the time," then it clearly isn't grounded very firmly. After all, Bush's incompetent cronyism is also traditional for conservative corporate America, but that's not a valid defense of his administration's inaction with regard to the hurricane.
If it looks like a marriage, acts like a marriage, and is viewed as a marriage by the people within it, why not call it a marriage? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 20:13:41 [Permalink]
|
Courseknot wrote: Finally something I can agree with.
Yeah, that's nice, but the problem is that the way things are politically in the USA, my solution has only a snowball's chance in hell of becoming a legal reality. Given that marriage as a social concept will continue to be connected to legal marriage, isn't that even more reason why the government should recognized gay marriages as marriages?
Here's another question. When you argue that we should keep defining marriage in the so-called traditional way, are you making a social or a legal stance? Do you have a problem with the government recognizing gay marriages the same way they recognize straight ones, or do you have a problem with people generally referring to gay unions as marriages? Or both? If you had friend who was gay, had a wedding and called her spouse her wife, would you introduce them in those terms, or would you refuse to on principle?
And since you didn't answer yet, I ask, once again, what is the value of keeping this particular tradition? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/10/2005 20:15:11 |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 22:48:15 [Permalink]
|
| I wonder why marriage is still defined and described in the laws at all. If it should be, then polygamous marriage arrangements should be allowed as well. Three people married to each other, or one person married to three others... etc. But why have the government involved at all? Why not just make it a private ceremony thing? |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 23:45:18 [Permalink]
|
Three people married to each other, or one person married to three others... etc.
Goodness knows there are various subcultures that would advocate that as well. Perhaps that should be a whole new thread. Definitely could be interesting.
But why have the government involved at all? Why not just make it a private ceremony thing?
I hear people ask this question (usually young, unmarried people with no children) all the time. From a distanced philosophical perspective, legal marriage can seem silly. But the legal benefits of marriage do actually benefit all of society. If we were to, say, suddenly do away with legal marriage right now, many things become legally far more complicated and expensive than most people can deal with. Legal marriage is how people who are not blood related become each other's closest family. If I die, my husband gets my stuff. If I go into a coma, my husband makes my decisions for me. If I have a kid, even through artificial insemination, my husband has joint custody. My husband just got a university job - thus, I now also have health insurance. This is not the case with gay couples and it causes all sorts of hardship and legal complications for them that straight people don't have to deal with. To replace marriage with contract law would make everything so much more complicated and expensive, that most people would not deal with it and pay the price when something happens and it becomes an issue.
I'm speaking from an American perspective, of course. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/10/2005 23:47:04 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 00:01:17 [Permalink]
|
I feel compelled to try to point out the emotional/psychological aspect of gay unions being recognized both socially and legally as "marriage". As I'm sure many people on here who either are gay or who know gay people are aware, coming out is rarely a short or pleasant process. One friend of mine had a gay-friendly family, his best friend came out in HS, and all his friends knew he was gay (and let him know in various subtle ways) for years, and yet still, he couldn't admit it to himself and come out until he was 21 years old. Why was it so difficult for him? I think because he didn't want to adopt the social identity of gayness.
There are few places where a gay couple can simply walk down the street holding hands and not feel self-conscious. Other people notice if you are gay. They make it part of your identity. My old roomate was referred to at work as "Big Gay Jake" even though he didn't act like that stereotypical character from Southpark. Calling gay marriages the so-much-more-sterile term "domestic partnerships" belittles those relationships. It says that they are an other. It calls even more attention to the fact that they are not just people, but gay people.
When my husband and I went to apply for the marriage license, it was a romantic and exciting event in our lives. I try to imagine saying to the clerk instead, "We're here to apply for a domestic partnership license". I feel sorry for people who would have that event tarnished with yet one more reminder that a huge portion of American society doens't regard their relationship as legitimate, equal, or essentially the same and "traditional" marriage. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/11/2005 00:07:34 |
|
|
|
CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 05:50:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
.
Apparently, you're still missing the point, and getting smarmy like that isn't going to help.
Maybe I am... what is the point? Maybe I missed it in the defense of my opinion. Sorry.
Marriages of convenience also have a long tradition, both within the U.S. and outside of it. Perhaps we should decide that only such unions will be called "marriages," because of "tradition."
In all seriousness, if all you've got to base your opinion on is "well, that's the way it's been done most of the time," then it clearly isn't grounded very firmly. After all, Bush's incompetent cronyism is also traditional for conservative corporate America, but that's not a valid defense of his administration's inaction with regard to the hurricane.
If it looks like a marriage, acts like a marriage, and is viewed as a marriage by the people within it, why not call it a marriage?
Here is where the problem is for the married people I've talked to about this subject. Here is where tradition comes into play. Marriage is viewed by these people as between a man and a woman.
Tradition can be hard to buck.
[/quote] |
Just flying through space with the rest of you... |
|
|
|
CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 06:15:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Courseknot wrote: Finally something I can agree with.
Yeah, that's nice, but the problem is that the way things are politically in the USA, my solution has only a snowball's chance in hell of becoming a legal reality. Given that marriage as a social concept will continue to be connected to legal marriage, isn't that even more reason why the government should recognized gay marriages as marriages?
Here's another question. When you argue that we should keep defining marriage in the so-called traditional way, are you making a social or a legal stance?
A personal stance.
Do you have a problem with the government recognizing gay ed.marriages unions the same way they recognize straight ones,
No
or do you have a problem with people generally referring to gay unions as marriages?
I guess if you want to call "keeping with tradition" a problem then yes.
Or both? If you had friend who was gay, had a wedding and called her spouse her wife, would you introduce them in those terms, or would you refuse to on principle?
I rarely introduce anyone as husband and wife. I just say this is Jon and Katie or Jim and Sue... like that.
And since you didn't answer yet, I ask, once again, what is the value of keeping this particular tradition?
Sorry I missed this question. Do you mean marriage with a man and a woman or marriage itself?
|
Just flying through space with the rest of you... |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
