Now playing on dirty.radio: Loading... |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Quote:
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. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Quote:
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.
__________________
Download all my remixes Last edited by Sean; 06-27-2008 at 03:22 PM. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Quote:
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Quote:
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Quote:
Quote:
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 Quote:
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.
__________________
Download all my remixes Last edited by Sean; 07-08-2008 at 03:22 PM. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Quote:
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Quote:
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Quote:
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. (!)
__________________
8=====)~~(=====8 Last edited by jOHN rODRIGUEZ; 07-08-2008 at 04:45 PM. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Quote:
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.
__________________
Download all my remixes Last edited by Sean; 07-08-2008 at 02:26 PM. |
Post Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|