California overturns ban on same-sex marriage

[Skie]

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

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.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Skie

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Skie

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 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

Originally Posted by Skie

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.

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.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by Sean

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

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.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by cacophony

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.

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. (!)

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

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

beat you twice.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by cacophony

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.

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.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

i'll concede that point.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

This should get interesting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26891725/

1.3 million raised for such wasted effort for ignorance. I just don't get how gays can make a mockery of marriage anymore than some have done with it. Oh wait, there were money gains invovled with those events.

Maybe if these same people focused efforts on things like, say, maybe, THIS: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26843836/ , I mean, it's just maybe the third occurance in a 12 month period.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

This should get interesting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26891725/

1.3 million raised for such wasted effort for ignorance. I just don't get how gays can make a mockery of marriage anymore than some have done with it. Oh wait, there were money gains invovled with those events.

Maybe if these same people focused efforts on things like, say, maybe, THIS: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26843836/ , I mean, it's just maybe the third occurance in a 12 month period.

Absolutely spot-on. Year after year we hear more stories of kids being abused by men of the cloth. To use their own analogy, they should deal with the beam in their own eye before criticising the speck in someone elses.