Thread: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

Originally Posted by Jerry

Well I apologize, I wasn't reading your conversation, I just chimed in.

I was just trying to coax you to expand on your statement "For example marriage used to be only between people of the same race but that has changed. Marriage has changed constantly."

Thats fine I understand.

I agree with that sentence.

Originally Posted by Jerry

In America? Can you provide a timeline?

Sure.

Polygamy legal until 1862.
Laws prohibiting interracial marriage overturned in 1967.
The first no-fault divorce law takes affect in 1969.
In 1973, Maryland becomes first state to define marriage as "between a man and a woman".
Rape within marriage becomes illegal in all 50 states in 1993.
In 1998, South Carolina is the last state to remove interracial marriage ban from state constitution.
2000-2006, time period in which most states alter their Constitutions to prohibit same sex marriage.
2004-2012, time period in which several states allow same sex marriage.

The "traditional" definition of marriage is actually pretty young.

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Sure.

Polygamy legal until 1862.
Laws prohibiting interracial marriage overturned in 1967.
The first no-fault divorce law takes affect in 1969.
In 1973, Maryland becomes first state to define marriage as "between a man and a woman".
Rape within marriage becomes illegal in all 50 states in 1993.
In 1998, South Carolina is the last state to remove interracial marriage ban from state constitution.
2000-2006, time period in which most states alter their Constitutions to prohibit same sex marriage.
2004-2012, time period in which several states allow same sex marriage.

The "traditional" definition of marriage is actually pretty young.

Well, the man/woman part of it has always been kind of a given. Same-sex marriage would have drawn howling laughter 50 years ago.

Originally Posted by Erod

Well, the man/woman part of it has always been kind of a given. Same-sex marriage would have drawn howling laughter 50 years ago.

"Boston marriage" was a term that was quite common in New England in the early 1900s. It referred to two women living together, independent of financial support from a man. It fell out of style and became uncommon by the 1950s and most people today would not be familiar with it.

History pokes holes in the notion of a "traditional" definition of marriage. Same sex marriage was practiced all the way back in ancient Rome, and even two different Roman emperors were married to same sex partners. It also has spanned cultures from China to Brazil. Marriage is a very artificial construct that has always been adapted to the dominant culture of a society.

What has truly limited same sex marriage has been the criminalizing of homosexual acts. It wasn't until 1962 that the first state decriminalized consensual homosexual acts in private. Rather than being a "laughingstock" the idea of same sex marriage would have been a felony during the 50s.

The existence of laws against same sex marriage throughout history are the best evidence that the "man and woman" definition has not always been as self evident as same sex marriage opponents would like people to think.

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

The existence of laws against same sex marriage throughout history are the best evidence that the "man and woman" definition has not always been as self evident as same sex marriage opponents would like people to think.

Amen...if there was no occurrence or motivation for something, there'd be little perceived need to outlaw it.

Further, it would greatly improve the basic sense of logic if certain narrow political camps would pay attention to the fact that a politically dominant way of doing things isn't the ONLY way to do things. The very same socially conservative notion of traditional marriage -- one man, one woman (preferably of the same religion) choosing a lifetime exclusive romantic, sexual, and economic partnership -- is itself a radical departure from much longer-lived traditions of marriage (like marriage-as-property transaction, marriage-as-real-estate-contract, marriage-as-means-of-keeping-pharaohnic-power-in-the-family (eew!), etc.).

Yet even during the respective reigns of dominance of each of those much older, much longer forms of tradition, it was still the case that other less-known practices did exist.

This basic disconnect -- in which that which is dominant is treated as "the" definition of something just because it is dominant -- is a hallmark of totalitarianism and fascism. Rather than make any attempt at rational engagement with other views and practices, those who appeal to popular prejudice and/or political dominance are in effect declaring open war upon all other ways of doing things. It is the approach so perfectly summed up by Bruce Campbell as Ash in The Army of Darkness;

"...Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun."

That's ultimately what the paleo-conservative appeal to bigotry with regards to marriage amounts to... "Good? Bad? We can outvote and outspend you...so you simply don't matter."

Originally Posted by Ikari

I generally am in favor of reducing government, yes.

how does increasing the net number of groups the government gives perks to a reduction in government?

Originally Posted by ARealConservative

how does increasing the net number of groups the government gives perks to a reduction in government?

I would answer because it isn't the only issue here. Fairness is also at play. If you want to argue not giving any benefits to any married couple, I would understand that far better. But to merely say that this group can and this group can't, without any valid reason? No, I wouldn't and don't accept that.

Originally Posted by ARealConservative

how does increasing the net number of groups the government gives perks to a reduction in government?

Obviously it is a reduction in government force.