Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

commitment, responsibility, devotion, and love make a strong, socially beneficial marriage and a stable environment in which to start a family.

Is any of that not present in your friendships or the family that you have already? Would any of that not be present if there were not a 2 person limit to a marriage? Is any of that guaranteed in a 2 person marriage?

Again, I ask - Why are we singling it out? Because we just have historically, why question it?

[PanzerJaeger]

Is any of that not present in your friendships or the family that you have already? Would any of that not be present if there were not a 2 person limit to a marriage? Is any of that guaranteed in a 2 person marriage?

Again, I ask - Why are we singling it out? Because we just have historically, why question it?

I don't really understand. Presumably, there is a level of affection involved in a marriage that isn't present in friendships and family relationships.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What is that? Is that what marriage is? Sexual affection? Is that any of the government's business?

[PanzerJaeger]

What is that? Is that what marriage is? Sexual affection? Is that any of the government's business?

Marriage is what it is. You either believe it has a social value or not. You either think the government should be involved in it or not. What I don't understand is how you can hold such diametrically opposing views of the institution based on gender. When it is limited to a man and a woman it is a special and valuable social institution, but if that were to be expanded to two men or two women, then it should suddenly be thrown out. I am saying that what makes marriage special is not the gender of the involved parties. It is a null variable.

If you don't think government should be in the business of marriage, that is a completely legitimate position. If you've come to that position because you feel like gay marriage will somehow degrade the institution to the point of meaninglessness so it might as well be thrown out, I dispute that notion. It just seems like an intellectual temper tantrum.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And I'm asking you - what makes it special then, and why? You've given hollow and vague answers so far.

I thought it was special for a number of reasons, in particular the psycho-phyisical gender union and it's ability to raise children as reflected it the cultural-religious values of most people on the planet earth. Now that those have changed and we have started throwing those things out as a society, I wonder why we keep marriage around, but numbers suggest that we are not, in fact. Of the few people who are still getting married, more and more of them have a meaningless and fluid understanding of it based on Disney movies and the TV shows that peddle it as a business.

Over time I've realized that this society no longer values the institution and, because I value the religious institution even more, I would like to get the government out of all but the most pertinent and objective of our mutual businesses. I believe that marriage is a metaphysical union and, as such, the government has no right to be involved. Marriage is religion and, like Religion, it will be strengthened if the government gets the hell out of the business.

[Strike For The South]

And I'm asking you - what makes it special then, and why?

The rights and privelges

[PanzerJaeger]

And I'm asking you - what makes it special then, and why? You've given hollow and vague answers so far.

I thought it was special for a number of reasons, in particular the psycho-phyisical gender union and it's ability to raise children as reflected it the cultural-religious values of most people on the planet earth. Now that those have changed and we have started throwing those things out as a society, I wonder why we keep marriage around, but numbers suggest that we are not, in fact. Of the few people who are still getting married, more and more of them have a meaningless and fluid understanding of it based on Disney movies and the TV shows that peddle it as a business.

Over time I've realized that this society no longer values the institution and, because I value the religious institution even more, I would like to get the government out of all but the most pertinent and objective of our mutual businesses. I believe that marriage is a metaphysical union and, as such, the government has no right to be involved. Marriage is religion and, like Religion, it will be strengthened if the government gets the hell out of the business.

And I'm asking you what gender has to do with anything you just described. I'm not sure what a psycho-physical gender union is, but I do not think our cultural values surrounding marriage would change by making it simply a psycho-physical same-gender union. The value society places on the stability of long term relationships and their benefits in raising children would remain. Our understanding of relationships can evolve without the destruction of the whole institution.

If you are concerned about the meaningless and fluid nature of many contemporary marriages, that is a conversation for another thread. Conflating that problem with gay marriage confuses the issue.

[Noncommunist]

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?

Environmentalists seems to be pessimistic about the survival of various species while those less environmentally inclined think that those species are pretty hardy. Doesn't seem strange that those most concerned about something would doubt its ability to survive.