San Fran Court UPHOLDS Prop 8...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Marriage was traditionally polygamous.

You changed the definition of traditional marriage.

Shame on you.

---

That was a world regional thing. Most men were poor and didn't have the means to support a family. Those with more money, could support more wives and children.

Today, we can do the same thing in the USA. We just cannot marry. Hell, men do it all the time. Knock up three, four, or more women. That is morally wrong by most people, but what is really criminal in my eyes, is having children you cannot provide for! I see that as Child Abuse!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

In short, heterosexuals have done a good job destroying the importance of marriage over the last five decades in this country such that it really doesn't matter how it's defined anymore.

---

Gold... :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urunobili

"When any society says I cannot marry a certain person, that society has cut off a segment of my freedom" Dr. Martin Luther King Jr 1958

---

That was why marriage first entered the government eyes. Well before MLK, the government started to register and regulate marriages. It started as a racist ideal, to control who blacks could marry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That was a world regional thing. Most men were poor and didn't have the means to support a family. Those with more money, could support more wives and children.

Today, we can do the same thing in the USA. We just cannot marry. Hell, men do it all the time. Knock up three, four, or more women. That is morally wrong by most people, but what is really criminal in my eyes, is having children you cannot provide for! I see that as Child Abuse!

---

Try to stay on point here.

Polygamy was traditional.

In the Bible.

Why did you go and mess with the definition of marriage?

And I'm not sure that you can argue against excluding homosexual couples from marriage as "arbitrary" while maintaining an arbitrary line against polygamy. Polygamy has been practiced throughout human history, as has homosexual relationships. It has been excluded from the state definition of marriage due to religious biases against its practice. So potential polygamists might constitute a small portion of the population? Do homosexuals constitute anything larger than, say, 5%?

The reason proponents of liberalizing the state definition of marriage to include homosexual couples do not want to recognize that polygamy is just as worthy of inclusion is the fear of the impact on public support as it relates to their cause, though logically there's no difference.

Hey, you'd piss off a lot of evangelicals by legalizing polygamy. Though some might like to try it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

18 year olds can already marry -- and teens younger than that can marry with parental consent in many states -- so the notion of allowing teen marriage is not exactly a novel one.

---

The age of consent is 17 in some states, and I think 16 in others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

The polygamy argument, to me, is effective insofar as it shows that this debate is about drawing arbitrary lines -- like the line of limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

After all, no sane person would argue that allowing that definition of marriage would suggest that one man should be able to marry 10 women or vice versa.

---

One you start changing the definition, others will want their way with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

In the end, saying a marriage is only between 2 people strikes me as far less arbitrary (and more defensible) than saying that it's only between one man and one woman. A significant portion of the society is much more comfortable with the entirely arbitrary line that now exists and what better way to defend the arbitrary line that you like than to suggest all sorts of ridiculous scenarios for changing that line.

---

I am among several people who will never tolerate the idea if redefining marriage. Call it something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

One you start changing the definition, others will want their way with it.

---

You already changed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Those arguments make no sense together. The same-sex marriage argument, as a public policy issue, has very little to do with religious recognition of that union. It has everything to do with governmental recognition of a union that need not necessarily be a religious one. Different sex couples that marry through non-religious means get the same governmental treatment as those who are religiously married. So the religion argument is a total red herring.

The point about eliminating any governmental benefits arising from marriage is a much stronger position.

---

We see it from different perspectives. Look at it from the point of view that the government never had the right to interfere with a traditional church activity.

Does this mean anything to you:

Quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

---

Polygamy won't get play because it doesn't upset the patriarchal order of traditional marriage with the man as the head of the household as much as defining marriage to include homosexual couples will. Some will likely see polygamy as an attempt to revert back to the old school patriarchal order with men free to set themselves up as mini-potentates with a bevy of wives to do their bidding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Do homosexuals constitute anything larger than, say, 5%?

---

in the US? Probably 10% are out and there should be an 8 % closeted still...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We see it from different perspectives. Look at it from the point of view that the government never had the right to interfere with a traditional church activity.

Does this mean anything to you:

---

Of course, religious practice for some does include polygamy. Why must their religious liberties be infringed upon? Because of some arbitrary definition of marriage as between a couple?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urunobili

in the US? Probably 10% are out and there should be an 8 % closeted still...

---

60 million? Highly doubtful. Even 30 mil is stretching it, unless you believe Kinsey's studies...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We see it from different perspectives. Look at it from the point of view that the government never had the right to interfere with a traditional church activity.

Does this mean anything to you:

---

Oh trust me -- I'm an absolutist when it comes to the Establishment Clause. But we're not talking about a religious issue with same-sex marriages. If it were a religious issue, we'd be talking about government insisting that no church or temple or mosque or other worship group recognize same-sex marriages (or that they all do it). If and when same-sex marriages get universal recognition, there's nothing about that to make religious groups marry same-sex couples. The whole issue is whether a government that recognized marriages -- whether religously sanctified or simply done through civil ceremonies performed by public officials -- can narrowly define marriage and accord benefits to those who are married that are unavailable to those who are not.

Surely you're not insisting that all marriages are religious in their nature? If so, are ceremonies performed by judges without any religious significance nevertheless religious unions? And, if so, into what religion do those non-religious ceremonies fit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Surely you're not insisting that all marriages are religious in their nature? If so, are ceremonies performed by judges without any religious significance nevertheless religious unions? And, if so, into what religion do those non-religious ceremonies fit?

---

I do believe they are religious in nature. I have always taken that stance. I say those who were married by a judge are not married.

Again, the government should not be involved with marriage.

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown;3425434]
After all, no sane person would argue that allowing that definition of marriage would suggest that one man should be able to marry 10 women or vice versa.QUOTE]

you totally miss the point. once you change the definition for one group -- the polygamists or the triad will bring their cause and demand the change and "right" (marriage is not a right).

the NAMBLA argument is also a valid one - but more to the point is the agenda to bring law suits against religious organizations under "hate speech" with intent to remove tax-exempt status' and further remove diety from the fabric of our society.

Quote:

---

the NAMBLA argument is also a valid one

---

No consent.


As FWD mentioned, I'm perfectly fine with trading one arbitrary definition for another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by implacable44

but more to the point is the agenda to bring law suits against religious organizations under "hate speech" with intent to remove tax-exempt status' and further remove diety from the fabric of our society.

---

That's ridiculous. There are plenty of legal activities and lifestyles that some religions condemn, why haven't lawsuits been brought on behalf of them?

There are a great number of churches who would deny Eldership to a man who has had children out of wedlock, or who smokes, or any variety of other LEGAL activities that the church disagrees with. There are still PLENTY of churches who will not grant leadership positions to women! They can't even lead worship, lead a prayer or so much as give announcements in front of the congregation. When are we going to see the onslaught of feminist lawsuits to remove those churches' tax exempt status??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by implacable44

you totally miss the point. once you change the definition for one group -- the polygamists or the triad will bring their cause and demand the change and "right" (marriage is not a right).

the NAMBLA argument is also a valid one - but more to the point is the agenda to bring law suits against religious organizations under "hate speech" with intent to remove tax-exempt status' and further remove diety from the fabric of our society.

---

Well, first of all, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a right -- and a fundamental one at that. Zablocki v. Redhail makes that pretty clear.

Nevertheless, I'm sure that you've missed my point. The definition of marriage as being limited to one man and one woman is just as arbitrary as it would be to limit marriage to two people (which the current definition already does). The point is that we draw arbitrary lines in this area; the question is whose arbitrariness should carry the day. My ultimate point is that an arbitrary line that says marriage is an institution between two consenting adults strikes me as more reasonable than removing any line to define marriage as the polygamy/NAMBLA red herrings suggest. In other words, there seems (to me) to be a reasonable arbitrariness to saying that marriage is limited to two adults (regardless of gender) -- I think while still arbitrary, that line is far more reasonable than saying only a man and a woman or saying as many men and women as want to be married.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The age of consent is 17 in some states, and I think 16 in others.

One you start changing the definition, others will want their way with it.

I am among several people who will never tolerate the idea if redefining marriage. Call it something else.

---

So, you're cool with dowries and forced marriages, right? :) That was the traditional setup, IIRC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

So, you're cool with dowries and forced marriages, right? :) That was the traditional setup, IIRC?

---

Not personally, but it happens in some cultures.

If we are going to go by the laws as wanted by the majority, then we will not have such things. We will also not have same sex marriage.

If we go by customs, and don't interfere with family beliefs, then whats the problem with it?

Now forced marriages have happened in this country. They were called shot gun weddings. However, a forced marriage cannot be made valid, simply because of the rights extended to individuals by the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Not personally, but it happens in some cultures.

If we are going to go by the laws as wanted by the majority, then we will not have such things. We will also not have same sex marriage.

If we go by customs, and don't interfere with family beliefs, then whats the problem with it?

Now forced marriages have happened in this country. They were called shot gun weddings. However, a forced marriage cannot be made valid, simply because of the rights extended to individuals by the constitution.

---

Yes, I'm just pointing out that the 'traditional marriage' definition has never been set in stone. It's meant polygamy, it's meant politics, it's meant many different things.

Why can't the discussion of gay marriage in California end? Seriously, the people voted and they voted to ban gay marriage in California. You may not like and you might even hate it but the people voted and that's how it is. Accept it. Besides, if you want to get married, you don't have to do it in California. There are states in America where gay marriage is legal. Go to a state where gay marriage is legal.

The people can vote again.

And bring lawsuits.

You might not like it, but that's how it is.

Personally, I could care less about gay marriage. I don't give a fuck if gays want to get married. If they want to get married, fine by me. I was just saying that the people of California voted and they voted against gay marriage. And yes, they can vote again on it but from what I've heard it won't be for a while. I just don't get why gays are still protesting Prop 8. It's done. Protesting is not going to have it overturned. They should just wait until the next time it is on the ballot. And if they really want gay marriage to be legal in California, then all the gay marriage supporters need to get off their asses and convince/persuade/pressure/bribe voters to vote their way.

Gotta start sometime. The legal challenge has already begun, so they might as well keep it on the frontburner.