Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[gaelic cowboy]

In my view there should be no force of law in any marraige.

You wanna stand in front of the grand wizard of the nine nerfalans and pray to bingo the clown thats fine, but your union is just symbolic and should not have status under law.

The idea of civil marraige or of legally recognising a religious marraige is bogus.

[Whacker]

The ruling has been upheld by the federal appeals court. On to the Supreme Court.

I've read a few op-ed bits from different places that tend to agree this probably won't make it to the US Federal Supreme Court. The actual legal issues that were ruled on seem to be pretty specific to the California state legislative and legal processes. Guess we will wait and see.

[Hooahguy]

The ruling has been upheld by the federal appeals court. On to the Supreme Court.

Hooray for justice!

[ICantSpellDawg]

In my view there should be no force of law in any marraige.

You wanna stand in front of the grand wizard of the nine nerfalans and pray to bingo the clown thats fine, but your union is just symbolic and should not have status under law.

The idea of civil marraige or of legally recognising a religious marraige is bogus.

I can agree to this. But, if you're asking me - will I agree that the relationship between 2 men or 2 women is worthy of special societal rerecognition? My answer is no. I can't say that is is any more special than a relationship between 2 best friends, or a brother and sister. That's the point of societal recognition, that society places a special value on the particular relationship. My point is that we wont and therefore we shouldn't.

[PanzerJaeger]

No, we haven't. That's why there is a gay marriage movement.

Yes. It is odd to see someone speak with so much confidence in a societal consensus, when it is so obvious that no such consensus exists. Speak for yourself, but leave the collective 'we' out of it.

Interestingly enough, polling suggests that, within a generation, we will return to a broad accord on this issue.

[Vladimir]

How can social conservatives be against this? Like abortion, this will further reduce Democrat voting base. We don't need gay people pretending to be straight, having children, and raising them to be Democrats.

[Lemur]

We don't need gay people pretending to be straight, having children, and raising them to be Democrats.

This statement is despicable on multiple levels, and reflects poorly on you.

[rvg]

How can social conservatives be against this? Like abortion, this will further reduce Democrat voting base. We don't need gay people pretending to be straight, having children, and raising them to be Democrats.

Generally gay people pretending to be straight tend to be the most hardcore conservatives. Senator Larry Craig comes to mind.

[Vladimir]

This statement is despicable on multiple levels, and reflects poorly on you.

It's interesting you quoted this instead of the abortion part. Anyway, not my words, and RVG is right.

But yes, onto SCOTUS. PJ's numbers are interesting but not entirely unexpected given the baby boomer vs. Gen X dynamic. I'm interested to see how that opinion changes over one's life.

[Lemur]

Anyway, not my words, and RVG is right.

Another counter-factual, nonsensical statement, although this time you manage to avoid slandering whole segments of the population, so we must be grateful for little mercies.

You posted what you posted.

Generally gay people pretending to be straight tend to be the most hardcore conservatives. Senator Larry Craig comes to mind.

Indeed. You speak truth. I feel sorry for people living in the closet, but that does not excuse them for the damage they inflict on others.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Should 2 heterosexual male best friends be allowed to get married?

[Strike For The South]

Should 2 heterosexual male best friends be allowed to get married?

There are plenty of sexless, childless heterosexuals marriges out there and in a decade all these fears about the family unit collapsing will prove to be unfounded and hollow

[ICantSpellDawg]

So, what's your answer? Should I take that to mean that any consensual 2 person relationship should gain tax and SS benefits?

[a completely inoffensive name]

So, what's your answer? Should I take that to mean that any consensual 2 person relationship should gain tax and SS benefits?

Why not?

[PanzerJaeger]

Should 2 heterosexual male best friends be allowed to get married?

Should two heterosexual male and female best friends be allowed to get married?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why not?

So anybody can get married to anyone else? Where do you limit it? Why do we recognize it in the first place?

[a completely inoffensive name]

So anybody can get married to anyone else? Where do you limit it? Why do we recognize it in the first place?

Is this really a question?We limit it as a union between two or more people. You can bring out the ignorant beastiality argument but the fact is that only humans comprehend and understand unions as we talk about it, so it only applies to humans.We recognize it in the first place because we put social pride and emphasis on love, friendship, and community, things that make america stronger.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So any 2 consenting humans can get married for any reason?

[PanzerJaeger]

So any 2 consenting humans can get married for any reason?

This is already the case for male/female relationships.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So any 2 consenting humans can get married for any reason?

Why not?

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's fine, I just want to get an idea of what we are advocating. So, at the end of this, what is the civil institution of marriage? I don't mean "this" as in the gay marriage debate, I mean "this" as in the years of liberalizing the divorce laws, liberalizing the infidelity taboo, gay marriage, etc. Why are we recognizing it at all, as a society - what are we recognizing?

Why is marriage a recognized thing in the first place?

[PanzerJaeger]

It will be the same as it is now.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It will be the same as it is now.

So, your praphrased argument is that, since the civil institution of marriage is already meaningless, why not lump more types of relationships onto it? My question is: why wouldn't it just be better to get rid of it entirely? It doesn't do anything to me, the government and society stopped supporting it years ago and it actually increases the value of the Catholic marriage to do so. It's likely that it wouldn't reduce the number of actual marriages, just the number of technical ones. I say let's abandon the idea of civil marriage. A modular marriage system, if you will.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Should 2 heterosexual male best friends be allowed to get married?

That would be bad, but are we really going to check up on people to see if they are "really married" the way we do with immigrants? Actually wasn't this the plot of some adam sandler movie?

[ICantSpellDawg]

That Sandler movie pissed me off. How dare the government recognize the love between 2 men who diddle one another and not the love between 2 men who are best friends, or the "like" between 2 single men who have a mutual interest in sharing SS benefits as an old age hedge with one another.

BTW, why would that be "bad"?

My point is: "How dare me for limiting marriage between 2 heterosexual people of different gender? How dare you for limiting marriage to 2 people who are romantically attracted to one another!"

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That Sandler movie pissed me off. How dare the government recognize the love between 2 men who diddle one another and not the love between 2 men who are best friends, or the "like" between 2 single men who have a mutual interest in sharing SS benefits as an old age hedge with one another.

BTW, why would that be "bad"?

It's clearly abusing the system...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Which one? doesn't that depend on what you view the institution's purpose as? What is that purpose, BTW?

[Xiahou]

My point is: "How dare me for limiting marriage between 2 heterosexual people of different gender? How dare you for limiting marriage to 2 people who are romantically attracted to one another!"

Being heterosexual is not a requirement- only being of a different gender. It sounds pedantic, but I think it's important to remember that. Heterosexual marriage does not prohibit homosexual individuals from getting married.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Which one? doesn't that depend on what you view the institution's purpose as? What is that purpose, BTW?

They aren't really married, they are just getting legally married for the benefits. Like when people do that to get citizenship. What's complicated?

[PanzerJaeger]

So, your praphrased argument is that, since the civil institution of marriage is already meaningless, why not lump more types of relationships onto it? My question is: why wouldn't it just be better to get rid of it entirely? It doesn't do anything to me, the government and society stopped supporting it years ago and it actually increases the value of the Catholic marriage to do so. It's likely that it wouldn't reduce the number of actual marriages, just the number of technical ones. I say let's abandon the idea of civil marriage. A modular marriage system, if you will.

Why is it that the strongest defenders of 'traditional' marriage have such a fatalistic attitude towards the institution while gay people tend to be so hopeful about it?

In short, I am a big traditionalist when it comes to marriage and I think the negative trajectory of devaluation and divorce can be reversed. I believe it does have both personal value to the parties involved including children and a greater social value, despite being debased by so many irresponsible people in contemporary times. I simply do not believe that gender is what gives it that value. Instead, commitment, responsibility, devotion, and love make a strong, socially beneficial marriage and a stable environment in which to start a family.