Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

[U2DMfan]

Are there any other Federal/State/Local laws that are considered "sacrament" (by religious folks) that aren't otherwise basic common sense ala the 'Golden Rule' (murder, rape, thievery, etc.)? In other words, is there a precedence for deference to religious/traditional values elsewhere in the law outside of common sense?

[martha]

It's the end of the world. Fifty-year couples getting married, the US Constitution applying to everyone, dogs and cats living together.


Pride parade, weddings go on in San Francisco as ruling stands - latimes.com

When Tom Rothgiesser and George Lucas (no, not that one) arrived at the Civic Center to cap off half a century of togetherness, they did not need a marriage commissioner to officiate.

The 79-year-olds brought their own Superior Court judge, a retired jurist with a pedigree. Judge James Warren is a longtime friend and the grandson of Earl Warren, the legendary U.S. Supreme Court justice who advanced civil rights nationwide.

"Equal protection under the law was the most important thing to him," he said. "He was rabidly in support of it."

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

FWIW, I think INDY is just playing a role on here an mimicing the various anti-SSM articles out out by colonists who themselves aren't actually anti-gay but, like most US Senators, know they have a knuckle-dragging audience to play to. No one who writes a column for NRO isn't an urban elitist, no matter what they say in their columns. rush Limbaugh paid $1m for Elton John to play at his 4th (5th?) wedding. Likewise, every senator in the Senate has gay staff. It's impossible not to in DC. They know gay people. But they also know who their constituents are.

This is the trick the conservative media-entertainment complex has played on the gullible.

Right! The teaching of all major religions going back thousands of years, all the marriage laws and jurisprudence of all previous governments and societies, and the personal beliefs of 2000 years of previous generations... all, all of, must now be worthless.

Apparently to some all wisdom begins the day one is born. Most certainly on this issue because to hold the belief that:
1) marriage requires a bride and a groom
2) a husband and a wife compliment each other in a way two members of the same gender cannot
3) or that children benefit from having both a mother and a father

is not only anti-gay, it's antiquated, it's bigoted, it's totally unsupported by one shred of evidence and apparently for those stubborn, "non-evolving," knuckledragging types such as myself -- the result of being bamboozled by "the conservative media-entertainment complex."

Can I just say your sanctimonious arrogance is breathtaking, with all due respect of course.

As I've said before, I understand why many people support SSM. I regret that the sentiment is rarely returned by its proponents.

[martha]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Can I just say your sanctimonious arrogance is breathtaking, with all due respect of course.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Right! The teaching of all major religions going back thousands of years, all the marriage laws and jurisprudence of all previous governments and societies, and the personal beliefs of 2000 years of previous generations... all, all of, must now be worthless.

Apparently to some all wisdom begins the day one is born. Most certainly on this issue because to hold the belief that:
1) marriage requires a bride and a groom
2) a husband and a wife compliment each other in a way two members of the same gender cannot
3) or that children benefit from having both a mother and a father

is not only anti-gay, it's antiquated, it's bigoted, it's totally unsupported by one shred of evidence and apparently for those stubborn, "non-evolving," knuckledragging types such as myself -- the result of being bamboozled by "the conservative media-entertainment complex."

Can I just say your sanctimonious arrogance is breathtaking, with all due respect of course.

You are the poster child for the bamboozled.

Straight people have already changed marriage, and thank goodness. No more Jerry Lee Leeis marrying his 13 year old cousin, no matter how traditional and wise that was throughout history.

I think you'd be much happier in Iran so you don't have to be upset about respecting differences and recognizing the common humanity of people different from you.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Well, some men will say a man needs more than one woman, and use that to justify polygamy. So it does work like that.

Also, what about a bisexual woman married to a man - and both want to bring in another bisexual woman into their union and have a polygamous marriage? For the record, I am not saying all bisexuals are incapable of being monogamous. But guaranteed, there has to be at least a handful around who prefer polygamy/polyamory.

All these people are free to make such arguments. They are distinct and apart from marriage equality for same-sex couples.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

All these people are free to make such arguments. They are distinct and apart from marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Oh I agree. I was just making a point about your comment to INDY.

Nevermind. Carry on!

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Good guess. But know that the president equally despises me and all who share my economics, politics, the institutions I support, and much of this country's history and founding principles.

I guess "bitter" really was an apt adjective.

Drama queen might be another.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

radical redefinition of marriage

Hahaha.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Most certainly on this issue because to hold the belief that:
1) marriage requires a bride and a groom
2) a husband and a wife compliment each other in a way two members of the same gender cannot
3) or that children benefit from having both a mother and a father

is not only anti-gay, it's antiquated, it's bigoted, it's totally unsupported by one shred of evidence and apparently for those stubborn, "non-evolving," knuckledragging types such as myself -- the result of being bamboozled by "the conservative media-entertainment complex."

I wouldn't say bigoted in every case. I would say "bigoted or ignorant." But yes, I agree with this entirely and evidence backs me up.

Originally Posted by INDY500

As I've said before, I understand why many people support SSM. I regret that the sentiment is rarely returned by its proponents.

Yes. You and your ilk have never once described any rationale that makes any sense. I'm a smart guy, INDY. I'd love for you to do it. You just have failed miserably, spectacularly even. We've been doing this dance for half a decade and I haven't the faintest idea why you think the way you think.

[Galeongirl]

Still makes me wonder, why is it that in a thread where we discuss gay marriage.. is it that the topic of polygamy keeps recurring? And for some reason it's always brought up by someone against gay marriage?

Can someone PLEASE explain to me what the bloody hell poligamy and homophilia have in common? Because I have no idea...

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

the personal beliefs of 2000 years of previous generations...

As a woman, I am relieved that the personal beliefs of 2000 years of previous generations are no longer seen as valid. I now don't have to be forcibly married to some man so that my father can expand his property, I don't have to be raped on my wedding night by some man 20 years my senior with whom I've never exchanged a sentence, my husband can't freely beat me when it suits him, I can get a divorce if I am in an abusive situation, there is financial redress for me so that I won't have to be homeless without any opportunity to make a fair wage or support myself, I have a right to have access to my children and not have my husband lock me out of his castle and abscond with them, etc, etc.

I am sure that other groups who have been historically persecuted feel the same way. I am also sure that most white men enjoying their historically privileged position also appreciate that we have moved on.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Good guess. But know that the president equally despises me and all who share my economics, politics, the institutions I support, and much of this country's history and founding principles.
The difference being I have but one vote to cast against the man. He, on the other hand, is fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

You'd make a great Fox News panelist. That you can say (with a straight face, no less) that Obama hates much of the country's history and founding principles without offering any actual, you know, factual evidence (much like the lack of factual evidence to support claims that SSM will damage society) is telling.

Rather than treating this last election as a wake up call for self examination, a large number of conservatives, you included, appear to be content to continue feeding the same narrow, insular and exclusionary ideology while blaming any lack of success on anyone but themselves.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Right! The teaching of all major religions going back thousands of years, all the marriage laws and jurisprudence of all previous governments and societies, and the personal beliefs of 2000 years of previous generations... all, all of, must now be worthless.

Apparently to some all wisdom begins the day one is born. Most certainly on this issue because to hold the belief that:
1) marriage requires a bride and a groom
2) a husband and a wife compliment each other in a way two members of the same gender cannot
3) or that children benefit from having both a mother and a father

I'm so glad you mentioned this. I've been thinking about this discussion today, particularly Anitram's very succinct definition of the institution she will soon be partaking of (Congrats, Anitram, by the way!).

I think what you are missing is that the definition of marriage has actually changed quite a bit over the millenia. Indeed there is very little that hasn't changed. Let's consider the criteria under Canadaian law that Anitram described.
1. Mutual consent. This was not always a given in marriage, and even today in cultures where arranged marriage is still the norm, consent while not ignored is certainly not the predominant factor.
2. Exclusively between two people. Clearly, as has been discussed, marriages have not always been limited to a mother and father but often a father and many mothers.
3. Conjugal relationship. Sex has always been part of the marriage equation (though how much of it actually happens throughout the marriage obviously varies!), but what hasn't always been part of the marriage relationship is the assumption or the need for a romantic attachment as a precondition to marriage or as a necessity for the success of the marriage.

Now considering your traditional criteria above. The second two have not been a given among all societies and all cultures for millenia. The whole idea that a child must have a mother and a father or that the man and woman complement each other are not universally preached ideas that have only now been challenged. If anything, the tradition has been that of the village or at least the extended family being crucial to the raising of children.

The only thing that really hasn't changed over the millenia is your first criteria in that marriage must always involve at least one man and one or more women. The reason for that is simple. For most history marriage has been essentially about one thing: The production of children. And without a man and one or more women, until recently it was not possible to produce children.

You see the real change in marriage is not, as you posit, the change from one man and one woman to two adults of either gender, but from marriage primarily as a vehicle for producing and rearing children to a marriage primarily as a vehicle for a lifetime of intimacy and commitment with another person. That changed happened with heterosexual marriages and then it was only a matter of time before homosexual relationships would also enter the picture.

Finally, the wisdom of history is over-rated. For generations, slavery was considered acceptable in most cultures and societies. For generations, war has been considered a legitimate way to resolve disputes between societies. The weight of history does not afford either of these traditions any special authority. Past generations were not any wiser or any dumber than we are today.

[anitram]

^

Good post, Sean.

It's been many years since the couple of anthropology classes I took as electives, but history is full of examples of men having almost nothing to do with the rearing of children, especially of female children. It is a fairly recent modern phenomenon that men are involved parents and participate in feeding, dressing, bathing, changing diapers, childminding, etc.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by anitram

It's been many years since the couple of anthropology classes I took as electives, but history is full of examples of men having almost nothing to do with the rearing of children, especially of female children.

Especially among the upper classes. I'm reminded of a story from the letters of the Roman orator Quintilian. He had a son die at a young age, perhaps 9 or 10, and he claims that the boy was so good that he recognized his dad when he came to see him. In short: Quintilian was impressed that the kid knew his face.

Regarding a definition of marriage, I don't see how this is really complicated at all. It's as simple as a legal union of two consenting adults. Even the sexual activity element shouldn't be a prerequisite.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Especially among the upper classes. I'm reminded of a story from the letters of the Roman orator Quintilian. He had a son die at a young age, perhaps 9 or 10, and he claims that the boy was so good that he recognized his dad when he came to see him. In short: Quintilian was impressed that the kid knew his face.

The same can be said for the mothers.

[IWasBored]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Even the sexual activity element shouldn't be a prerequisite.

Generic comedian: And from what I know about most marriages, it isn't there anyway. *boom tish*

[martha]

It's good to know that the Republicans are taking care of what really matters:

Shameful: So-Called ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’ Introduced in House | Human Rights Campaign

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by IWasBored

Generic comedian: And from what I know about most marriages, it isn't there anyway. *boom tish*

'Ey-oh!