California overturns ban on same-sex marriage

[cacophony]

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.

Originally Posted by Skie

It's obvious marriage means less in society today than it did 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 30 years ago.

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.

[Skie]

Originally Posted by cacophony

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.

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?

Originally Posted by cacophony

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.

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.

[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.