California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

I'm sure many of you have already heard about the fact that California's Supreme Court has overturned a ban against same-sex marriage. It's a great step forward that I personally feel is long overdue.

And today, the Pope reiterated the church's stance that "only unions between a man and a woman are moral". As far as I'm concerned, there was a time and place for advocating only male-female marriages, but it's looooong gone. I tend to look at these things from an evolutionary point of view, and while in the distant past it was a necessity for human survival that we procreate, we really don't face any threat of extinction from dwindling numbers at this point in human history. So marriage between a man and woman that's centered around the idea of populating the planet with our species has rightly evolved to be much more of a social foundation in which procreation is no longer necessary for survival. In fact, there are probably too many people on the planet as it is, so if anything, we could do with a little less baby-makin'. In my opinion, this is one of those issues where the church will end up clinging to the mindset of the past loooooong after the practicality of that mindset has gone bye-bye - like when they executed people who said things like the earth wasn't actually at the center of the universe.

In this current reality, I think that what's important to marriage's survival is more that it be between people who love each other, and who are willing to take on the commitment that pledging your companionship to someone for a lifetime requires. It's an institution that helps us mature as a society by teaching us the importance of being responsible for someone and something other than ourselves, being faithful to them by honoring our publicly stated commitments, and being there to support each other through difficult times. These values are absolutely essential to our positive survival as a society, but are not unique to a heterosexual relationship the way that creating a baby is.

So bravo to my home state of California, and let's hope it catches on.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

I kind of feel all pressured now to be committed. Isn't that an oxymoron(s)(s)?

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

i actually forgot that california had a ban. it seemed like such a gimmie for equal rights for gays since so many of the equal rights laws were already in place.

i have no doubt that christian conservative states like georgia and alabama will follow up with homophobic tightening of legal language forbidding such sin.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

I don't fully understand the way laws are passed and overturned over there, but is there any way that the Supreme Court's decision might be reversed, making same-sex marriage illegal again?

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

There's always that chance.

"A conservative group said it would ask California's Supreme Court to postpone putting its decision legalizing gay marriage into effect until after the fall election. That's when voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on a proposed amendment to California's constitution that would bar same-sex couples from getting married."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

The Governator has said he'd fight any proposed changes to the California Constitution.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

(?): Hey, let's go to CA & get married.

jOHN: What?

(?): No, no. Listen. Then, once it's all final, we go to the divorce court and ask for the paperwork to get a divorce.
We can get in the papers as the first gay couple to divorce.

jOHN: That's already happened.

(?): WHAT?

jOHN: Send me your picture. I'll get you in papers, heading's going to read: Goofy B.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

and they say romance is dead! ;)

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

ooops, I know. I think I kind of got into some trouble with that one.

I change that film soundtrack wedding song thread thing to B. Idol's The Dead Next Door. It's still never going to happen.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

I went down to SF City Hall on Mon to see the two old lesbians get married. Actually didn't see anything, was outside with the revelers (and protesters).

But this moment will go down in history. It will always be etched in my mind, just like the 2004 "marriages" I saw at City Hall. (I'm not a Gavin Newsom fan [SF mayor], but his 2004 decision was truly courageous.)

I've seen such beauty, love, commitment, excitment, and the fulfilment of equal rights this past week that it has brought tears to my eyes. The city, especially the Castro, has been a-buzz.

Gay Pride in SF next week is going to be special.

I'm proud to be a Californian.

Brad -- homo living in the Castro, SF who does NOT believe in the concept of marriage (but does love the Underworld!).

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

I think over the passed few decades this concept has be run into the ground. You need not look far in heterosexual relationships to see that marriage often means nothing more than having to pay someone alimony. Government recognition is really nothing more than a cheaply priced legal contract to ensure the family unit stability, e.g. the children are taken care of. But, family stability is a thing of the passed, making me wonder why anyone would be clambering to belong to the defunct "marriage" group.

Not to mentioned there are more financial benefits to be non-married than to be married. You can really buck the tax system with one itemizing the house and the other being able to utilize standardized deductions. Which will work out great unless you're in a common law state.

I also find it ironic that there's no one on the bandwagon asking for polygamy marriages (in all it's forms) to be "official". Because, we know they've been doing it for a long while now just as non-government sanctioned marriages. If a man and a woman is OK, a man and a man is OK, a woman and a woman is OK, why is adding another person (or more people) to the mix a taboo? If you're going to open it up, you might as well open it up so any consenting adult can marry as many consenting adults as they choose.

This doesn't even touch on the fact how throughout history societies that embraced polygamy tended to do very well. With the damn near requirement for dual-income households, wouldn't it be good to embrace a third "stay-at-home" counterpart to actual raise the kids. Then again, society would probably spontaneously combust if raising children ever became a focus. We've gone from "Children should be seen and not heard," to "Children should be; not seen and heard."

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

Interesting Skie.

I have no moral problem with polygamy as a construct. If anything I have a bigger problem with the sexism that it can entail, though I'm not convinced that sexism is inherent to polygamy, rather it's a reflection of the cultures within which polygamy has, until now, been seen to flourish.

How about incest, what do you think (morally) about that? Every now and again I read some story about a brother and sister somewhere asking to be left alone to continue their relationship (hey, I live in Wales!), and it's hard not to feel some sympathy for them. I think my only moral problem with it comes from the increased probability of unhealthy offspring. I wouldn't try to pass off my sense of "Urgh, that's icky!!" as a moral justification, which I suspect a lot of people are inclined to do.

Re. gays and marriage - I'm aware that there are lots of people looking on in utter bemusement at why so many otherwise sane gay people would want to chuck themselves into an institution whose purpose "seems to be" aimed at keeping straight people in a straitjacket. It's not a view I share (for many of the reasons given by Sean earlier) and I rather resent the accusation that it's just selling out to straight society in a bid for social acceptance. But I can see how marriage is not going to be to everyone's taste.

I think often, part of the problem with the marriage debate is that when you try to explain what you think it offers (companionship, lifetime committment, etc), some people can read that as saying that those things aren't possible outside of marriage. Well of course they are. I don't doubt there are lots of unmarried couples that are more stable and more committed than many married ones. Just as there are lots of single mothers doing a damn better job than many two-parent families.

I think the issue is really likelihood, the likelihood that, if you've thought about and are willing to enter a contract like marriage, then you're more likely (but not guaranteed) to feel that those things are worth something in life, and that growing old with someone can be beautiful and rewarding, even if it can also be tough and involve personal sacrifice.

That doesn't mean I think that if you choose not to get married, that you automatically don't or can't feel that same degree of commitment to your partner, or won't spend your whole life with them. But I think having some formal framework upon which people can focus (and to which they can strive) is no bad thing.

I'm writing this clumsily at the moment, and probably not putting in enough caveats. There are side issues like monogamy and religion, which I'm not covering. But essentially, I think marriage (even when taken as a secular institution, which many say it's not) definitely has its strengths and plays a mostly positive role in society.

That said, I've often looked at the direction our western societies seem to be heading in terms of marriage and sex, and (without wishing to get all Daily Mail) wondered in all seriousness if marriage is destined to be a thing of the past?

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

oh god not the "slippery slope" argument again.

IF YOU LET A HAPPEN THEN SURELY YOU HAVE TO LET Z HAPPEN!!!!!

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

Well no, it's not really a slippery slope argument (edit: or at least not a fallacious one). I'm not using it to advocate or assert anything, just pointing out a trend and wondering whether that will continue; whether marriage may become old fashioned and die out. Seems a reasonable thing to wonder.

Or were you referring to something else?

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

i'm talking about the suggestion that loosening the death grip on the definition of marriage means we have to let polygamy and incest into the club, too. AND WHY DON'T WE LET PEOPLE MARRY ANIMALS AND HATS AND SANDWICHES, TOO?!?!?!?!

i hate slippery slope arguments. the problem is most of us are capable of abstract reasoning, and through that skill we can tease out even the most tenuous connection between ideas. so everything you can think of becomes a potential slippery slope.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

Ah I see.

Sounds like you're referring to those slippery slope advocates who hold the view that "marriage must be between a man and a woman".

Can't say I really picked up on that in Skie's post tbh.

I thought it was more a genuine point about polygamy in relation to what is and isn't acceptable.

Consenting adults, and all that....

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

You say that the concept has been "run into the ground", but then give no evidence to support your assertion other than to say that people get divorced. Yes, people get divorced, but that doesn't change the fact that marriage, if taken seriously, is an inherently maturing experience that strengthens society as a result. At it's core is the biggest lesson in commitment and responsibility, next to having a child, that you can ever learn. As a married man, I can attest to that firsthand. I've heard people poo-pooing that point for years, but have never heard anyone actually justify their stance in a legitimate way.

Aside from that, I'm in agreement with everything Deckard said in response to the rest of your post. In some cases, I do see the slippery slope argument as legitimate, but not here so much. Especially since, as Deckard pointed out, there are health issues at stake where inbreeding is concerned, and because marrying a minor would likely involve statutory rape, etc. Polygamy is less clear-cut, but I don't see the opening of the definition of marriage creating a huge slipperty slope issue.


Although, Cacophony, there is a really good sandwhich place down the street that has an italian coldcut hero I may leave my wife for...

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

I agree the cultures that continue to practice polygamy definitely trend to issues with sexism. But, many monogamist cultures also continue to be sexist. Since marriage is not just applicable to a man and a woman, shouldn't it also be able to branch out and embrace other non-traditional marriages between humans?

As far as incest, I agree it's "icky"; but the main concern there is unhealthy offspring. Many island cultures practiced incest without detriment to their offspring. In addition, there are many other unhealthy pairings that are allowed to breed.

I agree, but I suppose I'm a bit jaded due to the volume of divorced couples (10% of the US population). (This figure doesn't even account for those who've hit the reset button and remarried.) I think it's a bit sad that there's about a 1/3 chance a marriage will end in divorce or to a lesser degree death before the 10th year anniversary. It's obvious marriage means less in society today than it did 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 30 years ago.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

I wasn't saying it' a slippery slope issue, but maybe it's a bit of a prejudice issue. I find it ironic to redefine marriage to include gays and lesbians, but lets keep those polygamists (whether multiple man, multiple women, or both), which are somewhat closer to a traditional marriage, out of our fun. Not that it matters that much, because it's not as though gays and lesbians couldn't get married before. The only change is that it's a state government recognized marriage which creates a binding legal contract.

I honestly don't see how that suddenly includes children, animals, plants, or inanimate objects. Is party one a consenting adult? Is party two a consenting adult? If yes to both then allow marriage equals true.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

Plenty of those where I live. :D

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO KILL ANIMALS FOR FOOD WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KILL PEOPLE FOR FOOD!!!!! slippery slope.

look, the specific quality that makes a society a society is an agreed upon set of rules regarding acts that are either acceptable or unacceptable to enough of the population to justify the thought process. gay marriage was not legal in the 50s because not enough of the population existed that accepted it to justify the thought process. these days it's a different story, and that's why it's changing now. it's not like 90% of the population is against homosexual unions and these changes are moving ahead anyway. over 50% of americans approve of civil union and almost 35% of the population approves of the idea of gay marriage. the scales tip because enough of the public opinion supports it.

it's not a logic puzzle. you can't go "well if a man can marry a man, why can't a man marry three women and a goat?" it's not about teasing out the logical connections. it's about societal support. societies don't operate strictly on cold logical conclusions. our system of laws is a rather emotional thing. all this navel gazing about the justification of incest is silly until enough of the population sees the justification of the thought process and the wheels of change start rolling in that direction.

is it obvious? or is that the conclusion you've drawn based on your pre-existing bias? consider that marriage as an institution is no more healthy today than it was 50 years ago, but the barriers to divorce and re-marriage have lowered significantly. 50 years ago if your husband punched you in the eye, you stuck around until death do you part. if your wife was a raging alcoholic you mixed her drinks and helped her to bed (thank you to my grandparents for setting that example). adultery is not an invention of the 20th century. what's an invention of the 20th century is rights for women who otherwise would have had no recourse in miserable or unhealthy marriages.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

But didn't the California supreme court go against the majority of voters by allowing same-sex marriage? So, in other words the agreed upon set of acceptable rules was overturned by people who "know better"? If they didn't come across this determination by a means other than "teasing out the logical connections" then what means did they use? Did they use the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" method or was it simply from flipping a coin?

So, battered spouses, alcoholism, drug-use, etc. are the main causes of divorce? This doesn't match too well the top four reasons for a divorce; money (problems), in-laws, religion (differences), and children (whether to have, how to raise, and number of). It seems to me the big difference, between now and 50 years ago is that it's much easier to leave than to work out your differences.

It's great that people can get out of bad situation with divorce. But, that paints a much more grim picture if you're saying that the 10% of the population that's divorced and a large portion of the 33% of people who can't even make it to year 10 are because they finally divorce their abusive, alcoholic, or drug-addicted spouse? And, you're saying that this large percentage of disfunctionality is nothing new to society and was the same 50 years ago. :eek:

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

Sounds like un-noted incompatibility causes all divorces...

I'm out of this topic.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

where did i use or imply the word "majority"?

didn't say that either. so congrats on your reading comprehension skills.

i'm skipping the rest of your post because it asks questions based on assertions i never made.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

Well you're still asserting this without offering anything to refute the reasons I gave why marriage is still an important institution in modern society. All you've said is that you think my point has been "run into the ground", and then said that some people get divorced. Simply because some people are flippant about marriage doesn't diminish the importance of it as an institution. People are flippant with all kinds of things that are still important. I'll re-post my opening points, and maybe you can address them:


As far as I'm concerned, there was a time and place for advocating only male-female marriages, but it's looooong gone. I tend to look at these things from an evolutionary point of view, and while in the distant past it was a necessity for human survival that we procreate, we really don't face any threat of extinction from dwindling numbers at this point in human history. So marriage between a man and woman that's centered around the idea of populating the planet with our species has rightly evolved to be much more of a social foundation in which procreation is no longer necessary for survival. In fact, there are probably too many people on the planet as it is, so if anything, we could do with a little less baby-makin'. In my opinion, this is one of those issues where the church will end up clinging to the mindset of the past loooooong after the practicality of that mindset has gone bye-bye - like when they executed people who said things like the earth wasn't actually at the center of the universe.

In this current reality, I think that what's important to marriage's survival is more that it be between people who love each other, and who are willing to take on the commitment that pledging your companionship to someone for a lifetime requires. It's an institution that helps us mature as a society by teaching us the importance of being responsible for someone and something other than ourselves, being faithful to them by honoring our publicly stated commitments, and being there to support each other through difficult times. These values are absolutely essential to our positive survival as a society, but are not unique to a heterosexual relationship the way that creating a baby is.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

i would say the institution of marriage has only been improved from what it was 50 years ago, not diminished in purpose or importance.

Along with what Cacophony said about divorce being more accessible, the purpose of marriage has shifted from practical/financial/social importance to emotional/personal importance. This effectively means that, while marriage is no longer socially enforced so stringently, society actually benefits more by people choosing to bond on more personally relevant reasons.

Personally I only got married to ensure my foreigner girl friend and I could be together without politics coming between us. Otherwise I don't think I really would have. But what started out as a formality brought out a framework of support, intimacy, and social engagement that did not exist otherwise. Things I wouldn't like to get rid of any time soon.

Why I wouldn't have married otherwise has a lot to do with growing up mormon, the same organization that has now sent what is basically a papal bull to the 750,000 california members to derail the same sex marriage through "time and means"

This same society saw me as a threat while I was single, forces people to choose between living like a chaste eunuch or marrying molly mormon down in ward 112 and having 6 kids in the time span of 6 * 9 = 54 months. Only to find that you were just horny and wanted to please your parents. Which explains why all of my copious siblings have all been married on average 2.4 times.

It took forever to deprogram my thinking to salvage a good institution of marriage from this mess. And the success of this process is all because I love my wife.

So to come full circle, perhaps people who would argue against gay marriage or its relevance, are still blinded by the same social structures that have caused such damage to something that is saved by individual expression.

just saying...

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

as a society we cling to this pseudo-historical neo-precious view of marriage as this sweet devoted lifelong institution where gramma baked and grandpa smoked a pipe and everyone celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary with a fluffy white cake with silver and gold candles.

marriage is no "worse" an institution than it was a hundred years ago.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

You're right, you only stated "enough" allowing the number of people in society to make something acceptable or unacceptable be as low as one. Or "enough" could require all. Ultra vague and noncommittal for the win!

What I inferred from your post has been refuted. Instead of clarifying your point of view, you've decided to leave under the guise of my lack of reading comprehension skills. It seems futile to attempt any further dialog with you.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

Sean, it's not that your point has been "run into the ground", it's that I think marriage as an institution has. The number of people who are "flippant" about marriage is increasing and while this could suddenly change, I don't see it coming without some significant changes to society. On top of that, there seems to be a trend where couples aren't even bothering getting married. It appears to me that marriage is being taken less and less seriously every day.

It seems to me that the value isn't in marriage, but in the character of the people who maintain their vows.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

I can understand the benefit of marriage to nationalize a foreigner. But, what aspects of marriage "brought out a framework of support, intimacy, and social engagement"?

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

i specifically left "enough" vague because historically the number of people deemed "enough" to change society has varied according to topic. the same number of people required to create the societal momentum to give women the right to vote is not the same number of people required to create the societal momentum required to make incest acceptable. if you think you can slap a number on this and call the discussion "done" you've got a fairly narrow and ignorant view of how momentum plays a part in societal upheaval.

i'm sorry you're so convinced that there can be hard quantities placed on society but as i said society is not a rational thing. you don't walk into the senate and shout "IF GAYS CAN MARRY, SHOES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY GLOVES!" and expect your law to pass. human beings are vague, sloppy, emotional and irrational. things pass according to the winds of change, not your logic that gay = polygamy = incest = bestiality = necrophelia = let's let the moon marry mars.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

But you're still missing my point. For the sake of argument, let's assume your assertion is correct. Well, simply because more people are taking marriage less seriously today does not inherently mean marriage is less important in helping maintain and advance a healthy society. Consider this as a parallel example - more people today have decided not to take maintaining a healthy diet seriously, and yet maintaining a healthy diet remains inherently important regardless.

And to address your final sentence, the value of marriage is that it plays a significant role in building the character you speak of when taken seriously - just as a healthy diet helps make your body stronger in most cases. In fact, next to becoming a parent, I'd say marriage is probably the biggest character building institution you can enter into. The level of commitment, understanding, compromise, responsibility and selflessness involved in publicly and legally binding your entire life to another person is simply unparalleled. You have yet to counter this fact in any serious way.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

For some reason you keep asserting that my point of view is a slippery slope one. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I wasn't even the one to bring up incest, I simply addressed it in one of my later posts. In addition, I haven't even broached the topics of bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, object-marriage or anything equally ridiculous. I feel like i often have to restate this because you seem to be stuck on the slippery slope.

I'm not saying there has to be hard quantities, but by your logic there could be "enough" people who don't want gay marriage today. So, the supreme court better look at it again and decide. In fact, we better re-weigh everything daily because our society is always in flux and the "enough" number for creating or abolishing a law could have been reached. I thought that was the point of voting, to say, "Enough people have decided that this law (or whatever) shall pass."

But, wait, I'm being rational again. Since you've established society is irrational, it's obvious that I am again barking up the wrong tree. Never mind that more said, "No" than "Yes" when put to a vote. The majority obviously means nothing in society today, and "enough" people in favor of something has nothing to do with it. It seems much more obvious that changes are made based on how loud of a voice the group has. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Numbers are only a factor by providing additional recognition.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

I won't argue with you that committed relationships are extremely important in character building. But, it is the individual that commits. Meaningful, committed relationships are possible without marriage. Society continues to prove that commitment and marriage aren't married to each other.

The advantage of getting married is the legal contract to help ensure family stability. My wealth is tied to my family for a minor fee (much less than it would cost to have a lawyer draw up papers with the same weight). Even should I cancel the contract, I am still obligated to support my spouse. The only other reasons that marriage continues to exist are tradition and religion.

I fail to see how the institution has any bearing on whether or not I remain committed to someone. It used to, because things like divorce, children out of wed-lock, and even living together unmarried were looked down upon. These days society is OK with someone who has children out of wed-lock and/or multiple divorces. You're no longer a social pariah for having a committed relationship with someone for the rest of your or their life without getting married.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

Yes, committed relationships are possible outside of marriage, and are much less looked down upon than they were in past generations. I don't see them being very common though. The fact is, being in a committed relationship that hasn't been consummated through marriage still allows a far easier "out" than entering a public union like marriage does. If you're unmarried and things get rough, then you can just break up. But if you're married, then you're facing a much more involved and public process of ending the relationship, which does tend to add to the likelihood that you'll put the effort into working through a rough patch. That may sound a bit cold, but it's an undeniable reality. Or, for a silly analogy, it's the difference between the care you put into a home you're renting versus one you've bought.

I believe I've already clearly outlined the reasons I see marriage as far more than a simple legal contract, or outdated tradition. And I'm an atheist, so I don't care about the religious aspect of marriage.

And for arguments sake, I'm fairly certain you've never been married, correct? If I'm right in that assumption, then I do think it's telling that you're arguing the lack of importance surrounding marriage with at least three of us who are married and recognize it's inherent importance. That's not a slap at you...it's just a relevant observation

I have a meeting I have to go to now, so I'll edit this later to include a response to this final point.

Okay, so I touched on this earlier when I mentioned the fact that marriage, in part, forces us to face difficult situations rather than just breaking up, which is far easier in a non-married relationship....and I don't just mean legally. In getting married, you have publicly announced to your family, your friends, the government, and most importantly to your spouse, that you have decided to spend your entire life together with this one person. In one act, you have formally told every single person that's important to you that your life is no longer going to be just about you...it's now about co-existing with another person and all that that implies. Where you live is a decision you will make together. Whether or not you have children is a decision you will make together. Where you'll freakin' have dinner is a decision that you will make together. That's a huge difference when you really think about it. Which society would be stronger....one in which the people are able to tackle difficulties squarely and together, in an effort to find a real, constructive, lasting and meaningful solution, or one in which the people leave themselves an easy individual way out in the event that a difficult situation presents itself? Now I'm not saying unmarried people can't or don't learn commitment, but next to parenting, where one or more lives are directly dependent on you, marriage is probably the biggest, most life-changing commitment you can make. It forces you to consider more than yourself in almost all aspects of life, including situations where you may very well otherwise just do what's best or easiest for you alone. I can't think of anything else that's comparable. So in large part, in my opinion, this public announcement of your commitment to spend your lives together - legal and religious implications aside - is where the importance of marriage lies and what sets it apart from simply living together.

At this point, it may be good for me to clarify that I don't care if it's a religious marriage, or a civil marriage, or a hippy-style wedding out in the middle of the woods that has no legal ramifications whatsoever....I simply see the serious public announcement of your intended commitment as the key to what makes marriage inherently important to individuals, and to society as a whole now and for the foreseeable future. That's what I consider to be the institution of marriage. I mean, for as long as people the world over have been getting married, every culture, every religion, every society has had their own unique way of actually executing the ceremony of it, but in all cases, the commitment aspect of it has always been at it's foundation. Even in marriages way back when it was centered in large part around procreation, the fact still remains that two people were announcing their commitment to do that procreating only with each other. In the case of what started this thread, same-sex marriage, the issue is one of tackling discrimination and granting gay couples legal equality in this arena. But I know plenty of gay couples who have had wedding ceremonies and considered themselves married long before it was just recently made legal - and in my opinion, where the societal importance of the institution is concerned, those marriages were every bit as valid as my own.

But of course you also continue to raise divorce as an argument against marriage, and say that because divorce is no longer as taboo, then marriage is therefore less important. I don't see that as a valid argument for reasons I've already stated. To reiterate one analogy I presented, simply because more people today have decided not to take maintaining a healthy diet seriously does not mean that maintaining a healthy diet is any less inherently important. Or just because less people today are having children does not mean that the experience of raising a child is any less inherently life-changing.

Not sure what else can really be said beyond this to make the point. I might just add that there are of course exceptions to the rule, and plenty of individuals out there can be just as good about commitment as any married person if not moreso, but for society as a whole, it serves this important purpose.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

you're radically misinformed if you think this country was founded on majority rule. it's not. true, we use majority vote to come to many decisions but the actual founding principle of this country has always been that the majority shall not trample the rights of the minority. that's how things like public displays of the 10 commandments and prayer in school get overruled.

even a supreme court ruling is subject to the whims of the changing winds of public opinion. rowe vs wade isn't exactly a popular ruling and left to the vote of the people abortion rights would have never won a majority during that day. even today it's tough to say where the majority would go on an actual vote. and even if the numbers game works and the majority does believe in safe, legal abortions, that doesn't mean the supreme court couldn't take the issue up again and find it unconstitutional after all.

these things aren't etched in stone and you don't expect law to originate strictly from extrapolation. "if A is B and B is C then A must be C."

on the one hand it's messier than necessary. on the other hand it's necessarily messy.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

to be fair, i'm not sure the observation is all that relevant. it would seem like a logical conclusion that those of us who are married see the inherent importance, otherwise we would have never married. it would be nearly impossible for any of us to sincerely argue against its importance. and for someone who has never been married it could be equally impossible to argue in favor of marriage's importance.

it would be like if you had a muslim and a christian arguing about the bible. you wouldn't tell the muslim that it was telling that he didn't believe in the bible when the three christians in the conversation did.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

Someone give this woman an award! I think I want to make a baby again. Oh wait, damn you beat me with that one two. (!)

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

At risk of being too direct, that's a horribly inaccurate analogy. Of course the point I made is relevant. If you want an analogy, I'd use being a parent. Non-parents may have all the theories in the world about what constitutes proper parenting, but it's impossible to really know what it would be like until you are one. And I'm saying that as a non-parent who would readily defer to a parent in any conversation about it. Or it could be compared to our outlooks on the Iraq war relative to Sarcasmo's since he's actually been there fighting it. And don't tell my wife that I just compared marriage to war....;)

But yes, we chose to enter into marriage, which is comparable to Skie's choice not to (assuming that's the case). I readily acknowledge that. But the subsequent life experiences directly resulting from being married, which an unmarried person would have no experience with, are what make the point clearly relevant since that's what this conversation is basically about in the first place.

Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
 

beat you twice. ;)