Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

**ICantSpellDawg** · 02-09-2012, 00:50

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

**PanzerJaeger** · 02-09-2012, 00:56

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

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

This is already the case for male/female relationships.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 02-09-2012, 01:00

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** · 02-09-2012, 01:05

It will be the same as it is now.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 02-09-2012, 01:09

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

**PanzerJaeger** · 02-09-2012, 01:53

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

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** · 02-09-2012, 02:11

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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?

**Noncommunist** · 02-09-2012, 04:07

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.