Proud to be a Californian

Hear hear. Bravo, CA.

We’ve had it for a while in Canada Matt, it’s nice to see some of the states pulling themselves out of the dark ages.

Unfortunately there’s a chance that the court’s decision could get reversed by a ballot initiative in November. So here’s hoping California lives up to its progressive reputation.

I am conflicted on this. On one side it is not right for man/woman to suffer if they are born on the wrong side, on the other end should we change the definition of marriage, and if we do, to what extend?

Some examples will be:
1. should we make it legal for a man/woman to marry multiple partners?
2. should we call it a marriage if a man/woman marry some animal or object?
3. Is it legal to restrict age of marriage (i.e if an 10 year old fell in love with an 80 year old)

To me, as long as the deed does not post harm to anyone, the law should not restrict our personal liberty. But the definition of marriage has existed for thousand of years, changing it is almost like change the definition of man and women.

So a better solution would be to give the benefit of marriage (tax exemptions etc) to gay couples, but keep the definition of marriage.

Frankly, the government has no business in determining the definition of a religious ceremony (ie, marriage) - including Christian-based definitions that limit marriage to a man and a woman. However, if the government is going to involve itself in religious affairs, in this case by providing marriage licenses, then it needs to be inclusive of all people (be they gay or straight or whatever). So I entirely support the California Supreme Court’s decision.

However, ultimately the government shouldn’t be issuing marriage licenses at all - everyone should enter into civil unions (or whatever non-religious term you prefer).

Wowpanda, examples of people marrying animals, objects, and minors are pretty moot, because an animal, object, or minor can’t enter into a legally binding contract.

but, marriage is not religious ceremony, it exists in all part of the world, whether that nation is Christian, Muslim, Budhist or communist/socialist.

The marriage licenses serves as a document for taxation, child support, property holding. It the government doesn’t issuing them then married people will have to pay the same tax, the property will be received as gift instead of inheritance. That part is what I mean by gay couples should enjoy the same rights as traditional marriages.

And who said animal/object/minor can’t enter into a legal binding contract? Law is not fixed and can be extended, people leave their riches to their pets all the time, and not too long ago even in US people marries at 15, 16

My view is that instead of changing the definition of marriage, just extend the legal benefits.

And it is a good idea that government should not mess around people with legal restrictions. As long as it is voluntary and does not harm others, people should be free to do what ever they like. Some examples are the female teacher who had 3 child with one of her students, and some guy had sex with his bike in Aus.

The whole concept of a non-person entity entering into a “marriage” as an example of what could come about due to same sex marriage is a strawman argument. I think the difference between opening up the ranks of which people can enter into this defined relationship and opening it up to non-human entities is worlds apart.

In reality, where we all must live, regardless of our desires, marriage is an evolving concept. In very recent history in the west and a common eastern practice in the modern world, marriage was not a relationship between a man and a woman entered into willingly for the sake of love and the desire to engage in a more meaningful relationship. It was an arrangment of convenience for your family, for whatever their purposes may be, with little regard to the desires of the married parties. Often, young girls were given to older men as wives so he could take care of her, but nowadays that would be heavily frowned upon (see LFZ ranch in TX). For many years in America, you were not allowed to marry outside of your own race, as a matter of the tradition of keeping your bloodline “pure”. The world changes continuously, change with it or be left behind. Evolve, or die.

s/LFZ ranch/YFZ ranch/g

looking for zion, yearning for zion, what’s the difference really?

the vi commands? Bring back so many memories.

Marriage is traditionally between a man and a women, no matter what the goal is (rich/power/offspring/love). Even with Alexandra the great and his gay army, he still pretends to marry a woman. Extend the legal rights instead of change the definition. I just wonder if Matt will be proud if CA allows multiple person into a marriage.

Wowpanda “And who said animal/object/minor can’t enter into a legal binding contract? Law is not fixed and can be extended, people leave their riches to their pets all the time, and not too long ago even in US people marries at 15, 16″

Actually they leave their funds to an estate/trust which cares for the animal. The animal itself never really obtains the money.

Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman because until recently it has been damn near impossible for same-sex couples to perform the same societal functions that opposite-sex couples have traditionally performed. The development of artificial insemination as well as the rather modern trend of homosexuals seeking long-term romantic relationships means that tradition no longer really applies to the current reality.

Fifty years ago the idea of a man marrying a man would have seemed preposterous, however now it is an acceptable and even laudable idea. There is no rational legal or moral argument as to why same-sex unions should not exist. Whether to call them marriages or civil unions is certainly up to the states, but whatever they are called I feel that the same term must be applied to all contracts issued by the government. As has been demonstrated time and time again things that are ’separate but equal’ rarely stay equal for long.

Two women together is sexy, but can’t reproduce till some extra semin is introduced, which only preserves one of the parties’ DNA. 2 man can only adopt, none of their DNA are preserved. Life is the survival of DNAs, and marriage is the best way to preserve life. After thousand of years, man kind has finally figured out 1 man and 1 woman together is the best way (not many to 1 or 1 to many).

Traditions can be good or bad and I do think the 1 man 1 woman rule for marriage is a good one. If you could call a union of 2 man or woman a marriage, then there is really no hold back for a marriage of multiple partners (it is already happening) or other wired types (i.e. marriage of very young girls).

That is why I am so conflicted with this issue. One one hand I say government out of our life, and on the other I don’t want all rules to be bent.

so over the statistics do you think child from single parent families or polygamist families are better off than the normal ones? Over the history there are periods where one man with several wifes are OK but those periods are short and most of the families are still one man one woman, and that is for a reason.

Marriage is nature’s way for man kind to continue itself. And the ones in between for whatever reason that don’t (you and me included) or can’t reproduce will have their genes permanently lost in the history of evaluation.

Panda.
-Endangered spices

Marriage is not invented as the computer, it is inherited from what ever we evolved from, just as sex. Else man kind will die out long before someone finally invented it. You can observe that behaver in mammals. They don’t call it marriage but it is similar (with some exceptions, lions, some monkeys).

The 1 man 1 woman marriage got to be the best, if anything else is better you will see today’s sociality practice that already. You can derive it from the theory of evaluation (survival of the fittest). If you think one man multiple wifes are better just ask your wife/girlfriend.

“Marriage is a relatively modern invention”
==> Really?.

“(And incidentally, very very few mammals engage in long-term monogamous relationships.)”
==> That is why they are mammals.

“Oh, then why do you have a problem with gay marriage”
==> I don’t have a problem with that. I am simply saying allow it or disallow it is not something to be proud off, just like allow or disallow polygamist families. There will be always new ideas/new ways humans want to explore, some good some bad and most you can’t tell.

I could say that you are wrong, you are done, but that won’t do any good. People in the past has done good things or bad things, if you look at history, there are inter-racial marriages from the beginning, and only in modern terms got banned (and not everywhere), and that is a reversion of progress. Similarly unbanning something (gay marriage, polygamy) might not be progress either.

Congrats to California. In Spain we still are kinda afraid that the next conservative government is going to remove the law (incidentally using the excuse that changing the meaning of a word is wrong, since they aren’t homophobic, of course). They are civil marriages though, religious cerimony is something that doesn´t have legal value here but that people can have after/before signing the legal papers (public or privately in 2 minutes). No law here tells any church who they should allow to go through their marriage rites, or regulates them in any way that I know.

As far as I am concerned, any legally consenting adult should have a right to marry whoever other legally consenting adult accepts the idea. The day I see a dog actually saying “Yeah, I want” I’ll start thinking of them as legally consenting adults.

Oh my Matt. You seem to have hit a nerve with this one.

It is too narrow an approach to look at marriage as a means to produce more humans. Marriage is nothing but a cultural tradition meant to *legitimize* two people having sex. Before contraception, sex generally led to pregnancy, those not married were branded ‘fornicators’ by the church of the day and punished. Those who were homosexual generally sought refuge within the church as clergy.

As with all traditions, the tradition of marriage continues to evolve. In the middle ages marriage was by and large arranged by families, and saw girls marrying shortly after entering puberty as a means of ridding them from the household burden. In fact in many parts of the world this horrific tradition of child bride marriages continues to this day.

Love, commitment, ideals that we now hold as the gold standard of marriage were unheard of. I cannot imagine the outrage if we were to begin marrying off our 13 year old girls to other boys or older men.

We are now moving forward in our interpretation of marriage to acknowledge that any two consenting adults may show their love and commitment to one another by marrying.

To Irune, Spain has granted some human rights to Apes. Will you object for a man/woman to marry an Ape? Apes can express love or affection too.

To Martha, then why are you outraged if your 13 year old wants to marry another man/woman if they fell in love? In that case should we change the law to make 13 year old adults?

So why are you discriminating 13/15/17 year old against Gays? If there is a vote to make the legal age to be 17, will you be proud to liberate them? How about 16/15? Or would you vote to make polygamy legal?

WO! So you would vote for legalize polygamy? In that case you are consistent with yourself so my argument is invalid.

I am neutral on gay marriage, but I will vote against legalize polygamy, in reasons previously stated. My primary reason that I dislike Matt’s use of “proud” is that it could open doors to legalize polygamy.

To Matt - your argument is consistent.

to Wowpanda - Laws are formalized traditions, that also evolve with time. They are meant only to apply to people who are mentally capable of entering into a binding contract (mental illness gets you of the hook). Marriage is a contract.

Laws are also meant protect those who cannot form a reasoned decision (children and the mental incapable) and to protect society at large. It is well known that portions of the brain that allow for reasoning are not completely developed until the late teens/early twenties which is why we treat children differently under the law than adults.

In many cultures/traditions poligamy is recognized, look to the ‘mormon sect’ that was recently in the news and the blind eye that was turned it by the law. The Bible and the Koran also have some historical views on it. Whether right or wrong, if the participants are consenting adults, and if there is no harm occurring to others (ie children of the adults), then I have to side with Matt and say I couldn’t care less.

This whole string is not about that though, it is about California’s decision to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry under the law. As I said before, it’s good to see it being legitamized.

I have to say that your views (Martha and Matt) are consistent and logical. However the thought that polygamy is within reason and could be legalized still upsets me. I still believe 2 parents homes are the best.

See, my argument, from legalize gay marriage to polygamy is just one step away

My argument is also based on logical reasoning, not from random.
1. Human nature. Jealousy is human nature. When every you have multiple person involved in an marriage, Jealousy will play a role in de-stabilizing the marriage.
2. True love. I don’t believe true love can be bi-directional. If you feel attractive to several woman at the same time, that is not love, that is sex drive.
3. History. In human history there are times when practice of polygamy is legal, but it is never common practice by every man (simply because there are not that many woman around). Even ones who has the means to do that might avoid that if they are in true love.
4. Sociality stability. When polygamy is legalized, it will just be used by man/woman to get more partners, epically the rich ones. The in fighting could bring down corporations and empires.

Anyway, if you are truly consistent, are you going to support legalize orgy (multiple man/woman marriage, a many to many relationship)? Are you going to legalize incest/inbreed?

1. Use common sense, 1 to many marriage will be better? Thats your belief?
2. I am sad your logical reasoning and animal instant has taken you over.
3. Most modern countries now ban polygamy. It is an bad ancient practice.

And don’t doge my question, if you are truly consistent, are you going to support legalize orgy (multiple man/woman marriage, a many to many relationship)? Are you going to legalize incest/inbreed?

enough nonsense.

This is not nonsense, I am simply pointing out where our logic and consistency are leading to.

How is it determined (logically) that an 18 yr old can make a decision for themselves, but not a 17 yr old (I know much older people who shouldn’t be allowed to make legal decisions. Anyone with an adjustable rate mortgage might fit that category)?

Don’t use any legal basis. We’ve enough proof that laws and the people that make them have nothing to do with logic.

Why is Warren Jeffs in prison (and rightly so, for many things that he was not convicted for) when Jamie Lynn Spear’s father/mother get’s to roam the streets a free man (did they not also support statutory rape).

I know these questions aren’t directly related to gay marriage, I just wonder where the line is. Because the obvious answers to the above, indicate that logic has nothing to do with it. Claiming every point as a “straw man” accomplishes nothing, and just makes you look like you can’t back up your position.

Wowpanda may not be as clear as he’d like, but avoiding what he means, doesn’t help, and actually would only prove to conservative extremists, that the proponents of gay marriage, don’t really have any clear logical thoughts on the matter.

Further though, I’ve never really understood the legal “benefits” to marriage (married and have a child). Why not take away whatever these benefits are, instead of making sure everyone gets a fair shake at them.

Yep I have been a bad debater, push out a lot of the not so good arguments.

But my final questions are valid, that is to be logical and consistent, since you already stated that you will support polygamy, are you also going to support legalize orgy (multiple men/women marriage)? Are you going to support legalize incest/inbreeding?

I respect your consistency. At this point I am a bit confused too, not sure if legalizing incest polygamy orgy is a new chapter in human liberalization or a new low in human morality.

Actually I should say I think legalizing incest polygamy orgy is a new low in human morality, that is only my thinking and I have no logical reasons to back it up. I don’t think you have evidences that legalize those will advance human society either though.

Agreed, but there are exceptions. consenting adults who incest might give defective children, in that case should the kids thank their parents for life or hate them for knowingly doing that?

My context is incest is known to have much higher percent of having defect children. By making a law against incest to have kids, the 2 consenting adults will at least unable to harm their possible offspring in public.

The line should be drawn somewhere. Incest/polygamy happen in animal world (humans included), but we should be better than animals. Simlar with the definition of Consenting adults, according to your definition, the burden is on the government to define the adult age, so where is the evidence that adult hood happens at 18, not anything below?

“Pragmatically, there is no option but for the government to pick a universal age.” Isn’t that the same bias used for banning of inter racial marriages and genocide as you said above?

Banning incest has nothing to do with racist, there are compelling reasons why incest are illegal in most countries today (maybe all).

You can see that we are going down a slop here, been me keep testing your boundaries and you consistently breaking them At some point (many to many and incest marriage) even Martha broke.

In Spain the government is already give partial human rights to apes, the burden is also on you to restrict their freedom. Apes can use tools and has simple analysis abilities. If apes are started to be categorized as humans (just like the age line), will you support marriage between those?

I mean an Consenting adult and an ape categorized as another consenting adult

One last thing, please don’t equate baning on incest and polygamy to that of interracial marriage and genocide, I am sure most interracial couples and genocide victims will be outraged.

The gay marriage advocates have not been willing to settle for “civil unions”, instead pushing to have their relationship recognized as marriage. The word itself being very important. Meanwhile they’ve been thumbing their nose at those who are standing for marriage to only include a man and a woman. The meaning of that specific word being the most important.

Rather than just make up a new word to describe a relationship between persons of the same gender, they seek to alter the meaning of an established word, to suit their desires, not caring one whit what traditional married people may feel about it. I personally have strong feelings about words only having the power that you give them (see the “N” word for an example). In today’s stupidly politically correct environment, it’s extremely hypocritical.

Oh, and the pedophiles are in fact quite proud of California as well. Today 18, tomorrow 17, the next day 12. Hopefully they don’t become so populous that they can have the same impact as the gay movement.

Separate but equal is not equal. Making blacks and whites drink at separate water fountains is not equal, it’s discriminatory. The situation here is precisely the same.

If you talk to any black people and say that all their struggle are the same as fighting for incest rights, they will be offended.

The law is a line, it might not be prefect but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Exactly where it is drawn is depend on the average moral of the country you live in. On the high end of it you have two parent families, on the lower end of it you can have a father marry his daughters and possible marry again on their inbreed female off springs.

I am sorry to give such offensive examples, but that is where the lack of moral will lead to.

This thread became useless quite awhile ago. Sorry WowPanda, but I\’m shutting it down. I\’m unsure why you\’re so focused on incest but at this point I can conclusively say that you\’re not adding anything to the discussion with your baseless speculation about the consequences of ceasing the oppression of homosexuals vis a vis marriage.

I\’ll end with this: Heterosexuals have ruined marriage, not homosexuals. Divorce rate of higher than 50%. If those who vote conservative (who, incidentally, get divorced at a higher rate than those who don\’t. The 15 states with the highest divorce rates in 2005 all voted for Bush in 2004) are actually interested in protecting marriage, they\’d be turning the metaphorical guns on themselves and the legions of divorcees. They\’re not. They\’re simply made uncomfortable by homosexuality. Tough. Suck it up and stop being whiny bitches. If two men kissing or getting married makes you uncomfortable I\’d suggest growing the fuck up as a viable strategy.