California overturns ban on same-sex marriage

[Skie]

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

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."

[Deckard]

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?

[cacophony]

oh god not the "slippery slope" argument again.

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

[Deckard]

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?

[cacophony]

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.

[Deckard]

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....

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Skie

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.

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...

[Skie]

Originally Posted by Deckard

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Deckard

But I think having some formal framework upon which people can focus (and to which they can strive) is no bad thing.

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.

[Skie]

Originally Posted by Sean

Polygamy is less clear-cut, but I don't see the opening of the definition of marriage creating a huge slipperty slope issue.

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.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Skie

there are many other unhealthy pairings that are allowed to breed.

Plenty of those where I live.