Page 5 of 53 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 524

Thread: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]

  1. #41
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Interracial marriage bans were around, and were "traditional," the "will of God," the "will of the people," etc.
    I don't see what this has to do with the obvious untruth that there was no history or tradition of interracial marriage before Loving.

  2. #42
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,033

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Marriage has been considered to be between a man and woman since it came into existence.
    Well, that's just incorrect on several levels. First, you can't know how frequently marriage has happened for same sex couples throughout history. Second, we know that's demonstrably untrue because marriage has in fact been considered to be between people of the same gender for some years now, and third, your use of the singular makes your statement fall apart right at the outset due to polygamous marriages.
    It may not affect a specific marriage, but it would be deceitful to claim expanding it to include relationships outside the traditional bounds of the institution is not changing marriage.
    Same sex marriage won't change my marriage anymore than allowing couples of mixed races to marry ended up changing the marriages of couples of the same race.
    This is about changing the fundamental accepted meaning of something that has been in existence for thousands of years.
    Even accepting that that meaning has been influid over thousands of years (and believe me, I'm not), change happens. And thank god, too, because humanity has had a lot of practices that needed to go, such as slavery and human sacrifice to name just a couple. It's good that we can as a race eventually review practices and beliefs we've steadfastly held for so long and determined they no longer fit in the modern world.

    Arguing that a legal document written 150 years ago actually requires a significant change in the millennia-old meaning of marriage is dishonest and rooted in partisan belief rather than sound legal theory.
    I'm not, and in fact I don't think anybody is arguing for an amendment to the constitution as it's not necessary. Also, unless you're referring to a different document, the constitution was written in 1787 making it a wee bit older than 150 years.
    Changes of such a fundamental nature to such a central institution should be based on the approval of society, rather than the whims of activists in robes.
    Well, it's funny you say that, because Supreme Court rulings do tend to reflect changing social mores, actually. That being said, tyranny of the majority is one of the reasons why we have a constitution, so as to prevent the masses from restricting the rights of the minority without due cause.

    Many states have approved it and many countries have approved it. One can safely say that it is only a matter of time before every state approves it through the legislature or a referendum. I consider that a good thing. Hijacking the constitution for one's political agenda is not something I consider good, however.
    While there is no doubt that at least a few same sex couples are getting married as an expression of a political agenda, most people just want to get married for the same reasons you and I want to.

  3. #43
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    I don't see how gender is anymore or less important than designating the ruling based on orientation. The rulings all seem to come down to equal protection on a very minimal rational basis test. I have argued that legislation passed by states legislatures is by definition meeting the due process clause, and rational basis, as our representatives have carefully considered the legislation of banning gay marriage, and if that isn't at least meeting rational basis, I'm not sure what is? The problem, (I think) eventually will come down to whether the rationale to exclude gays in marriage (mostly the preservation of and or higher regard for heterosexual familial contributions to the state over that of gay marriage familial contributions) is rational. A great many do not, I however do think that children do best with both a biological mother and father, and both gender representations is important in ways we may not even know. I've heard the arguments against this notion, such as, single parents, broken homes, bad parents etc.. And I acknowledge that those are valid concerns, but rather than use it as a whipping boy against the virtue of perfect parents in perfect worlds (Which we do not live in and never will) I, on the other hand think that we simply need to move in directions that help strengthen families, and provide a more equal and fair system for divorcing parents allowing access to both equally as the presumption. Add in several other tweaks to marriage and domestic laws and I think we can accommodate all parties concerned.

    Call me old fashioned if you like, but although I can't put my finger on any one glaring benefit and articulate why a child is better suited for having both biological parents involved and attentive, I do KNOW it when I see it. I don't see why gays or polygamists or any other consensual relationship can't enjoy civil unions, but I think marriage should be held to a higher standard, and reserve that standing for those that perpetuate the best model for success, and that's heterosexual marriages.


    Tim-
    Exactly what legitimate state interest is served by denying marriage to same-sex couples?

  4. #44
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Well, to be fair, part of the gay rights argument, as it relates to marriage, is that the traditional concept of marriage as between a man and a woman is outmoded and no longer relevant in today's society. I believe that's true. But then, if traditional marriage can be labelled as passe, why not all marriage? What could be more equal than treating each man and each woman equally, separately, irrespective of their marital status.

    The time will come when courts are forced to accept all and varied concepts of marriage and as they do governments will see the wisdom of getting out of the marriage business. I'll be long dead, so I won't be able to say I told you so - but I'll be looking down (or up) and smiling when it happens.
    I think the advent of homosexual marriage is the beginning of the end of marriage as an important societal institution. I, too, think it won't be in my lifetime but the institution of marriage is disintegrating and being reformed as a cohabitational agreement between any two (maybe more?) people. Maybe that's how society is evolving and maybe that's what's needed but it's very strange to me.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  5. #45
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,033

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I think the advent of homosexual marriage is the beginning of the end of marriage as an important societal institution. I, too, think it won't be in my lifetime but the institution of marriage is disintegrating and being reformed as a cohabitational agreement between any two (maybe more?) people. Maybe that's how society is evolving and maybe that's what's needed but it's very strange to me.
    Quickie Vegas marriages are infinitely more perverse to the symbolic importance of marriage than two duded getting married. Surely even you can agree that people who just met and get hitched in under a day make a far greater mockery of the lifelong vows they claim to be making. Focusing your displeasure on people who actually love each other and really do intend to spend their lives with each other is misplaced priorities at the least.

  6. #46
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Quickie Vegas marriages are infinitely more perverse to the symbolic importance of marriage than two duded getting married. Surely even you can agree that people who just met and get hitched in under a day make a far greater mockery of the lifelong vows they claim to be making. Focusing your displeasure on people who actually love each other and really do intend to spend their lives with each other is misplaced priorities at the least.
    I think a lot of the changes we've seen in society have made a mockery of marriage and the quickie Vegas marriages are just one thing, but even that isn't as much of a mockery as two guys getting married. This was something inconceivable to most of the world until about a dozen years ago. Most of the world still considers homosexual marriage to be an oxymoron and I think they probably will for the foreseeable future. But the concept of marriage has changed over time. It was virtually always one man and one woman, but love wasn't necessarily part of the deal until fairly recently. And only that makes the idea of homosexual marriage remotely rational because now with "love" being the focus of marriage, the argument that homosexuals love each other and, therefore, should be married makes sense in a way that it wouldn't have when it was a man and woman getting married based on parental direction or societal mores. Back when you had to purchase your bride from the family or when marriages were arranged, love wasn't the focus. Marriage has always been about creating a biological pairing.... clear up until recent years.

    So maybe it's time for society to adjust the laws of marriage to the newer and more updated perspectives; to keep up with the times, so to speak. But I think it's still very strange to have been born in a time when marriage was the most inviolate and unchanging of all human institutions as the joining of a man and a woman into something so odd as the joining of any two people that profess sexual desire for each other whether it makes biological sense or not.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #47
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,033

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I think a lot of the changes we've seen in society have made a mockery of marriage and the quickie Vegas marriages are just one thing, but even that isn't as much of a mockery as two guys getting married. This was something inconceivable to most of the world until about a dozen years ago. Most of the world still considers homosexual marriage to be an oxymoron and I think they probably will for the foreseeable future. But the concept of marriage has changed over time. It was virtually always one man and one woman, but love wasn't necessarily part of the deal until fairly recently. And only that makes the idea of homosexual marriage remotely rational because now with "love" being the focus of marriage, the argument that homosexuals love each other and, therefore, should be married makes sense in a way that it wouldn't have when it was a man and woman getting married based on parental direction or societal mores. Back when you had to purchase your bride from the family or when marriages were arranged, love wasn't the focus. Marriage has always been about creating a biological pairing.... clear up until recent years.

    So maybe it's time for society to adjust the laws of marriage to the newer and more updated perspectives; to keep up with the times, so to speak. But I think it's still very strange to have been born in a time when marriage was the most inviolate and unchanging of all human institutions as the joining of a man and a woman into something so odd as the joining of any two people that profess sexual desire for each other whether it makes biological sense or not.
    This is a very confusing post, since you go on at some length on how the function marriage changed to recognize love as the primary motivation in marriage, as well as in how we've changed from arranged (and purchased) marriages, only in the next breath to call marriage "inviolate and unchanging." Was this contradiction intentional?

  8. #48
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    This is a very confusing post, since you go on at some length on how the function marriage changed to recognize love as the primary motivation in marriage, as well as in how we've changed from arranged (and purchased) marriages, only in the next breath to call marriage "inviolate and unchanging." Was this contradiction intentional?
    Yes. These things were always unchanging.... until they changed. I'm of two minds on this with one mind agreeing that marriage must keep up with "the people" as an institution of "the people" and another mind confused about the new memes that are utterly at odds with what seemed to be the primary building block of society in a solid and "unchanging" formation. But the state of marriage actually did change. Maybe not so fundamentally as the basic structure of man and woman becoming something else, but the purpose and perspective of it certainly changed over time. So we do face some philosophical contradictions that something so basic and unchanging from our perspective, has and does, in fact, change. I think it is safe to say that no generation has seen such a sudden and drastic change as the one we're seeing, but the shifting of what marriage was, in essence, has been a slow and pretty constant thing over the course of history. Maybe it's that the change was so slow that it seemed like the moon would seem; rooted and locked in place even though it is constantly moving.

    My take on marriage is that it is a creation of the state in the form of a sanctioned entity and is, therefore, the domain of the state to establish definition and conditions. I am not against homosexual marriage per se as long as the state decrees that "the people" desire to establish and sanction it. I am against federal decree to all the states regarding it. As long as each state works out it's own needs in establishment of marriage it's all fair and good.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  9. #49
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,033

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Yes. These things were always unchanging.... until they changed.
    Uh, that's like saying that I will always sit on this couch...until I don't. Or that I was always sitting on this couch before I wasn't. All you're pointing out is that change happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I'm of two minds on this with one mind agreeing that marriage must keep up with "the people" as an institution of "the people" and another mind confused about the new memes that are utterly at odds with what seemed to be the primary building block of society in a solid and "unchanging" formation. But the state of marriage actually did change. Maybe not so fundamentally as the basic structure of man and woman becoming something else, but the purpose and perspective of it certainly changed over time. So we do face some philosophical contradictions that something so basic and unchanging from our perspective, has and does, in fact, change. I think it is safe to say that no generation has seen such a sudden and drastic change as the one we're seeing, but the shifting of what marriage was, in essence, has been a slow and pretty constant thing over the course of history. Maybe it's that the change was so slow that it seemed like the moon would seem; rooted and locked in place even though it is constantly moving.
    Perhaps. I think what's most important that as the world is changes is what is most important to you? The values you choose to live by, or how you adapt to a changing world, are ultimately more important.

  10. #50
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Uh, that's like saying that I will always sit on this couch...until I don't. Or that I was always sitting on this couch before I wasn't. All you're pointing out is that change happens.
    even though it was slow enough to be imperceptible except in retrospect.


    Perhaps. I think what's most important that as the world is changes is what is most important to you? The values you choose to live by, or how you adapt to a changing world, are ultimately more important.
    More important..... than what?
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

Page 5 of 53 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •