California Supreme Court struck down the state's gay marriage ban

[turgy22]

I'd have to say it's one big constant orgy of sex and violence here at ground zero in San Francisco. The roaming mobs in the street are so large and dangerous that straight people can't even get to City Hall to turn in their now worthless marriage licenses.

I just have to say that this is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Well done, Melkor!

Also, I've got to agree with Oversoul on the pedophile debate, even though he's just nitpicking based on his own choice of words. Technically, a pedophile is simply someone attracted to children and there's nothing legally wrong with that. Until they act on that attraction and actually molest a child, they have and deserve the same rights as everyone else.

 

[Oversoul]

Also, I've got to agree with Oversoul on the pedophile debate, even though he's just nitpicking based on his own choice of words.

I'll admit it's nitpicking. But I don't think of it as my own choice of words. I don't know. It seems fairly standard.

As far as a "bill of responsibilities" I do think it's a great idea. But responsibilities vary from person to person. A list of universal human responsibilities would be pretty short.

Also, I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about the government infringing on their responsibilities.

 

[EricBess]

I'm jumping into this a bit late, but it seems like a lot of this boils down to ideals vs laws. On one side, you have people who believe that the government shouldn't be treating people differently because of their personal preferences. On the other side, you have people who really don't think the government has anything to do with this discussion and are frustrated that they do.

Question - is there a purpose for gender differences? And I'm not asking about if there is a difference between gender, I already know that. I'm asking if there is a reason for these differences.

Seems to me that if you have any religious conviction at all, you have to awknowledge that God had a reason for creating man and woman.

Here's my issue - if the govenment wants to assign the same priveledges to a gay couple that they assign to a non-gay couple, then so be it. I personally think it is a mistake to group that with marriage. Call it "civil union" and be done with it.

If the gay couples aren't happy with the term "civil union" and want it to be called "marriage", then I would argue that they aren't comfortable with their own station and want approval more than they want equal rights.

A "family unit" consists of a husband, a wife, and some number (could be 0) of children. Another definition of "family" is broader, including any group of people who are gathered for a common cause.

Mark my words, though - the further we get from a traditional viewpoint of family and marriage, the more our society breaks down. It is confusing enough for a growing child to figure out who they are without messing with the definitions. Mothers and fathers both have important roles in raising a child and while situations often don't allow this situation, messing with it intentionally (and I'll include divorce in here as it applies to people who see it as an "easy way out") makes things worse.

 

[Spiderman]

I think that as long as a "civil union" contains the same rights as a "marriage", gay couple would be fine with it. But for some reason, the government seems reluctant to do that...

 

[Oversoul]

Question - is there a purpose for gender differences? And I'm not asking about if there is a difference between gender, I already know that. I'm asking if there is a reason for these differences.

Seems to me that if you have any religious conviction at all, you have to awknowledge that God had a reason for creating man and woman.

Conviction for YOUR religion, you mean. Would a Hindu who has great religious conviction acknowledge "that God had a reason for creating Man and woman"?

Here's my issue - if the govenment wants to assign the same priveledges to a gay couple that they assign to a non-gay couple, then so be it. I personally think it is a mistake to group that with marriage. Call it "civil union" and be done with it.

Well, we've had problems with the whole "separate but equal" thing in the past. But to me, at least, the name seems kind of trivial. I think Spiderman is right, but I can see how some might be uneasy with a "separate but equal" system.

If the gay couples aren't happy with the term "civil union" and want it to be called "marriage", then I would argue that they aren't comfortable with their own station and want approval more than they want equal rights.

Sure. I'll buy that.

Mark my words, though - the further we get from a traditional viewpoint of family and marriage, the more our society breaks down. It is confusing enough for a growing child to figure out who they are without messing with the definitions. Mothers and fathers both have important roles in raising a child and while situations often don't allow this situation, messing with it intentionally (and I'll include divorce in here as it applies to people who see it as an "easy way out") makes things worse.

You seem to imply that our society has already "broken down" to some extent and that moving away from tradition will make it continue to do so. Now, I do believe that some things are worse now than they were in the past, but mostly, it seems like the society we have now is a lot better than the one we had at pretty much any point in the past.

Also, I've read the words of people long dead that seemed to have a similar message, decrying the breakdown of society and the loss of the old ways (the latter of which I'll admit you didn't do). Decades, or perhaps, in some cases, centuries have passed and society is still here.

Marriage isn't an historically unchanging institution that is only now threatened. For most of history, marriage has been different than it is now. I find it hard to believe that now, in a time when we have enough nuclear weapons to potentially wipe ourselves out, the thing that will be our end will be the breakdown of marriage. Not to say that you came across as some sort of doomsayer. You didn't. It's just that I really don't see the problem.

 

[Mooseman]

Here is a question thqt may help define the debate.
What is the purpose of marriage (religious and governmental)?

 

[Oversoul]

Here is a question thqt may help define the debate.
What is the purpose of marriage (religious and governmental)?

Hm. I think I'm biased on that one. I don't believe that there is a good purpose behind state-sanctioned marriage, although there are certain good things about it people should be able to take advantage of.

But the religious purpose? Well, doesn't it depend on your religion?

 

[DarthFerret]

Yep, Oversoul, I think that the religious purpose of marriage would vary between religions. I think we can all agree that there are radical versions of religion at both ends of the spectrum. And there are also some that are right in the middle..etc...

As for state-sanctioned marriage, I would hesitate to say that it's purpose (whether we like it or not) is about the same as most state-sanctioned items. Money. The state can charge for Marriage Licenses, divorce courts, pre-nuptual agreements, etc....

I bet if you add it up, a married couple (whether straight or gay) spends more overall than just 2 people that live together. Especially now that you can claim a non-spouse as a dependent and recieve a bigger break on your taxes than Married filing Joint (in most situations).

The actual purpose for state sanctioned marriage may also be dependent on your point of view. If you are a legislator, I am sure your reasoning would be different than if you were a Social Worker. That is the great thing about debates like this. Everything that comes out is coming from a unique point of view that very few others share (since we are from different cultural, societal, economic, political, and religious backgrounds). That is why I love this current events topic. Because I can read and see other opinions than the ones from similar minded people that I generally hang around.

 

[Spiderman]

Mooseman's question is kinda why I asked earlier about marriage when religious institutions WERE the government and there wasn't any separation.

Religiously, I believe marriage serves a "notice" that the people involved are committed to each other and put the other first in front of any other.

Non-religiously, at least today, the people involved are considered a "unit" in terms of property and benefits, so to satisfy any debts, a collector can go after either member; to collect health benefits, one member can use the other's insurance; when one dies, the other gets the property/estate without the government or other family members getting involved.

But the above laws probably came from when religion was the government and were all tied together, the concept of two people becoming a "unit". And of course religion frowned upon same-sex, so that was never considered back then when the rules/laws were made.

 

[Oversoul]

Mooseman's question is kinda why I asked earlier about marriage when religious institutions WERE the government and there wasn't any separation.

And when was this?

 

[Spiderman]

Post #27

 

[Oversoul]

Religious institutions were the government as recently as post #27?

 

[Spiderman]

No, that was when I asked *when* religious institutions were the government.

 

[Oversoul]

The answer to that question varies greatly with region.

In our country, the only example I can think of was before we were a country, in colonial times. The Puritans were highly theocratic. But I don't know that they revolutionized marriage. They've certainly had an influence on our society and that continues even today, but I'm unaware of any legal aspects of marriage that started with the Puritans. That's not to say that there aren't any. Is there an historian in the house?

 

[Mooseman]

Spidey, I think he meant when was the church also the government....
Roman Empire, Henry VIII, Louis XIV, I'm sure there are some current countries that fit this mold.......

 

[Oversoul]

Spidey, I think he meant when was the church also the government....
Roman Empire, Henry VIII, Louis XIV, I'm sure there are some current countries that fit this mold.......

The Roman Empire? Louis XIV? How was the church the government in either of those cases? Their senate wasn't the clergy and when Rome bordered on dictatorship (or went past bordering on), the caesar still wasn't the religious leader.

Henry VIII is an interesting case though, but there aren't too many kings running around these days declaring themselves the leaders of their own churches and annulling their own marriages, so I'm not sure how much direct influence that's had...

 

[Spiderman]

What I meant was who was the real power and making laws - there could have been a "church" and a "king", but if the church controlled the king, it effectively was the government. And if it was during the times when certain "rights" or benefits became tied to marriages, then that's why it's pertinent to this discussion.

 

[DarthFerret]

Such as the times of the "Inquisitions", right Spidey?

 

[Spiderman]

Could be, if that was also the time when benefits became tied to marriages.

 

[EricBess]

Conviction for YOUR religion, you mean. Would a Hindu who has great religious conviction acknowledge "that God had a reason for creating Man and woman"?

I don't know enough about the Hindu religion. Do they believe in reincarnation and that sometimes you are male and sometimes you are female. If so, then perhaps their view would be different then mine, certainly, but the fact that there are separate genders, I have the believe that they, as a religion, at least feel that there is a reason for the difference and different things to learn through each.

Here is a question thqt may help define the debate.
What is the purpose of marriage (religious and governmental)?

Great question, and perhaps the reason we have such debates in the first place is because this is even a question. It has already been discussed that marriage is a public awknowledgement of two people coming together to form one unit. It is the creation of a family. But I think a more important question is what is the duration of marriage?

Too many see marriage as just a momentary convenience that can be disolved once it is not longer convenient. Most religious ceremonies talk about "til death do you part", indicating that the cerimony is binding only for this lifetime. The catholic church only relatively recently awknowledged divorce, for example, but so many people just shake it off and leave their kids wondering what they did wrong (sorry about soap box ).

The scriptures talk of a "new and everlasting covenant" and the sealing power to bind in heaven that which is bound on earth. Marriage isn't just a convenience for the duration of this life, but is a commitment throughout eternity. Government can't make that happen, though, and it certainly isn't available where gender roles are ignored.

As for church and state, government and church were never completely meshed. There was always a religious leader and an administrative leader. The differences came in how much influence one had on the other. There were certainly times where the religious leader was the true power and the King was just a puppet, but I don't know of anywhere that they didn't both exist.