6648 replies to this topic

[Corax]

Exactly. And the favoritism our Western culture exhibits for itself is simply blinding. Have we not forgotten how the Dark Ages -- the one time where the Church had absolute authority over nearly the entire Western civilization -- was a blatant regression? All of the thought and art -- arguably the state of a society's art is one of the best demonstrations of the society's advancement -- that was centered around the Greek foundation of Western civilization, was lost. It was ignored. It took a millennium for individuals to start to really look back and start anew. And during this time, other civilizations and societies made enormous strides. China had established some of the most advanced sailing techniques, ever. The Middle East was a central hub for culture and technology. The Aztecs, as war-hungry as they were, accomplished spectacular feats, not only in architecture but in science, as did similar South American civilizations. The Renaissance truly did bring Western civilization back to a deserved glory, but we would be blind to think that our predecessors alone crafted the world we live in today. Besides, the world has changed. Now, leaps are measured in decades, not centuries. Nations are connected from opposite ends of the globe through mass communication and international networks.

The International Community will be one of the ultimate destinies of humanity. We are all people. The archaic anachronisms of nationalism and war will be finally forgotten, and human beings will finally see, collectively, that language, ideals, values, are simply differences that craft a more beautiful whole. What is a diamond, without flourishing all of its facets?

Our world will only survive as an acknowledged International Community. If that means expunging archaic Western values, so be it.

[Corax]

If you guys can understand my romanticism I hope I made some good points... haha.

[Pongball]

Getting married was extremely important for me, from a legal standpoint, because it's the only reason I'm allowed to live here in the US with Hale. If we weren't married, we'd be stuck in a perpetual long distance relationship (which I'm sure we would have had to give up on eventually). Our marriage continues to keep us from being separated by immigration laws, no matter what country we find ourselves in in the future. If I ever had to move back to Canada for some reason (like if I got really sick and couldn't afford the expensive healthcare here), he'd be able to move with me.

Edit: Can't +1 Corax's post enough. :D

[Ryan8bit]

I believe that marriage is an institution ordained by God, and therefore is subject to his rules

The concept of marriage predates Christianity and Judaism though. Perhaps that is how you have come to know it, but consider that marriage came to exist as a formality or contract between two individuals to work together rather than some higher calling.

Also, if you believe that the government has no say in controlling who marries who, then you shouldn't vote for someone who mandates that type of control. Doing so is just too much cognitive dissonance.

Humans throughout history, in both relgious and nonreligious societies, have shown an amazing capacity for self-destruction.

Capacity isn't the same as actually doing it, and following a specific moral guideline of one sect of one particular religion is not going to change anything. Essentially, gay marriage isn't going to make the world fall apart. There is no way.

misandrist family laws

No such things exist.

[Klatrymadon]

I've missed a lot, but just to pluck something from the last page:

Humans throughout history, in both relgious and nonreligious societies, have shown an amazing capacity for self-destruction.

Thinking of the solution as a religious one doesn't help the aspiration to greater societal fairness. The sad thing about this process is how cyclical it is, irrespective of religiosity or secularity. Y'know, dissatisfaction engendering a push for greater social justice, increased social justice leading to decadence, decadence giving rise to complacency, complacency leading to diminishing social justice, newly impoverished social justice leading to renewed dissatisfaction, etc. Who people are shacked up with shouldn't have any bearing on this, and won't constitute "self-destruction" as long as they're taking the same precautions as any other reasonable human being. (Getting people to do this is, of course, another massive problem in itself, but talking of "self-destruction" in terms of being sent to "Hell" for "sins" is an inadequate way of attempting to solve it, regardless of whether or not you think people deserve the benefit of your - or your God's - doubt.)

[TheoConfidor]

Also, if you believe that the government has no say in controlling who marries who, then you shouldn't vote for someone who mandates that type of control. Doing so is just too much cognitive dissonance.

Unfortunately, there is no politician whose platform is "removing marriage from the government's jurisdiction." There is no propostion that suggests that government shouldn't be involved in defining or legislating any sort of personal relationships.

That was my challenge in voting on Prop 8. You can only vote "Yes" or "No." There is no way to vote, "Yes to the first part, and No to the second part." Our society has left me no choice but to abdicate completely or to choose between the lesser of two evils. Presently everyone who runs mandates control. Some mandate that gays must be included in being recognized by the government. Some mandate that only traditional marriages should be recognized. Nobody runs who isn't mandating control. That's why I view the entire system as a shell game. Heads no-one wins, tails everyone loses.

Humans throughout history, in both relgious and nonreligious societies, have shown an amazing capacity for self-destruction.

Thinking of the solution as a religious one doesn't help the aspiration to greater societal fairness.

Societal fairness is a subjective value that is desired by some. Personally, I don't believe that there is or can be such a thing as "societal fairness." Justice is something worth working towards. Fairness, alternately, isn't something that can be agreed upon or measured. Fairness, in its practical application inevitably ends up looking like this:

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - George Orwell

It is inevitable that when fairness is attempted to be enforced by the means of an arbiting party, the arbiting party is the one that receives the largest piece of the pie, at the expense of everyone who receives "their fair share."

[Klatrymadon]

I knew there were more reasons I needed to avoid this thread. I'm not using "fairness" as a venal, careerist politician does.

[Pongball]

Unfortunately, there is no politician whose platform is "removing marriage from the government's jurisdiction."

What about Ron Paul?

[TheoConfidor]

I knew there were more reasons I needed to avoid this thread. I'm not using "fairness" as a venal, careerist politician does.

I'm not presuming you were. I, however, do not have any way of knowing what you do mean when you use such a word. There are many practical perils that often accompany such a word. I would be genuinely interested in knowing your position, if you would care to share your perspective a little more fully.

What is your ideal conception of fairness? What would a fair society look like?

Unfortunately, there is no politician whose platform is "removing marriage from the government's jurisdiction."

What about Ron Paul?

First of all, outside of the primaries, he hasn't run for an office in which I can vote for him.

Secondly, while he does believe that marriage shouldn't be legislated by the federal government, he does believe that state governments should be able to write their own laws, in accordance with their citizen's wishes. His stance is better than most, but still does not fully advocate a removal of marriage from the government's jurisdiction.

[donald]

the current discussion about marriage in this thread just reminded me of an essay I read by Emma Goldman called "Marriage and Love" and how they are two completely different things. Having been married, I believe marriage and love are two seperate things. My great grandparents had an arranged marriage and they pretty much hated each other, and still had 7 kids.


Marriage and Love

I feel I am derailing the discussion a little, as you guys are talking more about marriage and government, so I shall apologize and let you carry on.

[Klatrymadon]

I could bore you all day with my conception of a fair society, and wouldn't presume that anybody could stay awake through it. It does involve a belief that most power structures are entirely illegitimate and unproven, but all that's pertinent here is that it involves gayeroonis being allowed to do all the things we nominally straight people do, and whatever the Hell else they want to do, as long as they're not stepping on anybody else's toes. Which goes for everybody else.

Else.

[Ulcer]

Concerning marriage itself, since marriage is not itself a state-instituted convenant, therefore the state has no power to grant or deny marriage to any persons. They may legally recognize marriages, or unions, or whatever they wish, but they have no say in who can or can't be married.

Just because the state recognizes a homosexual couple as being "married" for the sake of census, taxation and custodial concerns, should not mean that any religious institution would be forced to perform a ceremony for them, even though it would be against the teachings of that particular religion. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, indeed it does not mean that. So you can thank our deistic Founding Fathers for that, for keeping church and state separate. If you had been paying attention you would've noticed that raubhimself and weener have already sort of touched on this point.

EDIT: Ken Oh also made this point with the "libertarian" idea, and you did mention him. So now it seems I'm the one not paying attention.

If a majority of the people in a democratic society say they wish to recognize homosexual unions, then the government should grant that legal right. If a majority of the people in a democratic society wish to only legally recognize traditional marriage, then the government should only recognize those. The will of the people should reign supreme in a democratic society.

Don't you think that there is something inherently wrong about singling out a particular demographic group to put the question of which rights they should or shouldn't be entitled to up to a popular vote? Don't you think that establishes a dangerous precedent?

[donald]

We live in a republic, not a democracy.


just throwing that out there.

[Ryan8bit]

Unfortunately, there is no politician whose platform is "removing marriage from the government's jurisdiction." There is no propostion that suggests that government shouldn't be involved in defining or legislating any sort of personal relationships.

While true, there are those who support more governmental control than others. Those who support equal rights for gay marriage are at one less level of control. I know you said that it comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils, but that's just life in America.

[Corax]

Aw you guyz. <3


I'm currently doing some strenuous personal research on the causes of homosexuality and boy is it fun. Especially since it comes down to so far as "the results are inconclusive", so basically the only feasible way to argue is to argue about whether each other's WAY OF THINKING is correct or not.

Yeah it's fun to debate how to think. Amazing how little influence it has.