California overturns ban on same-sex marriage

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by Skie

But didn't the California supreme court go against the majority of voters by allowing same-sex marriage?

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

Originally Posted by Skie

So, battered spouses, alcoholism, drug-use, etc. are the main causes of divorce?

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.

[Strangelet]

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...

[cacophony]

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.

[Skie]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

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.

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"?

[Skie]

Originally Posted by cacophony

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

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!

Originally Posted by cacophony

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

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.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by Skie

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!

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.

[Skie]

Originally Posted by cacophony

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.

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.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by Skie

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.

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.