No need to argue, I think we're mostly in agreement. Yep, there are societies like that, and some even exist today on remote islands in Polynesia. However, those societies are rare because they generally don't exist where there is any kind of competition.


And I completely agree. My only point is that we tend to end up with male-dominated societies because those were the ones that survived and their biolgical nature simply carried over into the society they developed.

This tendency is observable in many species of primate. Where competition is fierce, groups of primates raid other groups, kill the males, kill the infants, and then rape the females before taking them into captivity. People are no exception, as demonstrated by the conduct of armies for most of our recorded history. Those victorious armies went on to reproduce and build societies in their own image. In short, we're the descendants of the biggest jerks the human race managed to spawn.

Again, I agree, but you're putting the cart before the horse in a couple of respects. For one thing, it was about having children, even when they weren't legitimate progeny. Men have had mistresses, frequented brothels, avoided commitment, and done other unseemly stuff of that nature for like, our entire history. They still do it today, even in this society, because they are the descendants of men who did such things. Men who behaved in that way had more children, and those children went on to create social structures that reflected their own natures. This is how societies get to be patriarchal. It's biology and evolution that make societies and cultures they way they are.

That said, you're completely right about the controlling the mother bit. Like I said, we're the descendants of jerks, and boys, jerks or not, have the testosterone and the accompanying tendency to just drag women along with them, through force if need be.

Excellent observations, and yet again, I agree.

Um...yes and no. I'd say it's more about competition for resources than guarantee of paternity, but both ultimately amount to the same thing as the former necessitates the latter, so no argument from me.

The first problem is that "Marriage" isn't a federal issue. Its a civil issue between the people involved. It doesn't concern you or me or joe and jane smith down the street unless we are the ones getting married, and it only concerns federal entities because they want to have as much ability as they can to weasel their way into your wallet or pocketbook.

Personally - I think "gay marriage" is a crock - both on a moral level and as a legal issue. However, the reality of the fact is that its not my right or responsibility to impose my morals on anyone. What two (adult, consenting) people choose to do in the privacy of their own home is the business of no one else.

Yet the reality is that there is nothing stopping a gay couple from drawing up a civil contract that equates (in rights and responsibilities) to marriage. Yet they CHOOSE not to do this. Why? Because they want to change society - make society conform to their views. Which is just as bad as the majority seeking to require them to conform to the majority view.

This is not about "equal rights" and never has been. Its about changing the moral and societal structure of civilization.

Marriage is a religious term. Its origin are in religion. No "traditional", mainstream religion supports homosexuality. Thus, to try to state that something is a marriage when the foundations of the word say it cannot be - is nothing mroe than an attempt to seperate the action with its root. In essence - cutting down the tree that has been one of the pillars of society for eons.

There is no "good" answer on this question - but the best one out there is to leave it as a states rights issue - but that would require a change in the Full Faith and Credit laws as well.

Correct.

and also because it's a legal standing that's recognized under law.

You are absolutely correct.

Except for the fact that many states will not recognize the validity of that contract

When a citizen's rights are being abridged then yes society should change. The minority is taking no rights away from the majority if gay marriage is recognized, so this is irrelevant.

Yes it is. To give a group of citizens the same right to marry whom they're romantically attached to as everyone else enjoys. Yes, society should change. Also, your morals are irrelevant. We've been over this.

Completely irrelevant as government is secular. So annul the marriage of every atheist or agnostic because they don't buy into your "marriage is a religious thing" argument. Unless you're grasping at straws to find an argument against gay marriage.

14th Amendment very clearly says it's not a state's right issue: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Please define "Constitutional right".

On that I have to disagree. There is ample evidence that people were getting married long before any church got involved, and that marriage wasn't originally considered sacred but necessary.

SCOTUS disagrees:

Meaning that it's innate and doesn't need to be granted to us by the Constitution. What the states are trying to do is restrict and deprive humans of their innate rights - and why those laws will ultimately be struck down.

But they have a long history of perverting what the Constitution really means. :D

Yep Marriage was basicly a business contract.

With benefits. :yep::rotfl2:

For awhile at least. :nope:

so. now you rat :haha:rse barfstages mad me read this entire thread.
my moment to say sumpting.:timeout:

good on yall folks with an open mind on the subject. I am with ya. let them "marry" on a legal level:up:

good on ya folks with a more classic mindset on the subject. i am with ya. gays and lesbians --> maried??? give me hair standing up in my neck. it just seems weird to me. :down:

entertaining discussion, reading this :doh: me, but taught me a few new popints of View:|\\

Thank you, all involved.
:rock:

That would be funny if it was not true! :har:

Different case, way out of context, considering that the question isn't about marriage (I should have been more clear) but about the definition of marriage, which is not Constitutionally defined.

Just tell me what a vote is good for if it can be overturned by one person.

If a law is deemed unconstitutional by a duly appointed or elected member of the judiciary who has the legal authority to render such a decision, and to whom the matter has been brought for review, the number of votes cast in favor of it is irrelevant. It violates the already established law of the land, or denies some protection or right that the Constitution is understood to guarantee, and therefore cannot stand.

Any vote cast in favor of a law that is unconstitutional is worth precisely nothing in the long run. Checks and balances, doncha know.

But I think we already covered that, oh, about a million times. :D

Nor should it be. Nor should it be defined by law, unless that law fully and completely specifies the nature of the contract. What is protected by the Constitution is our right to live our lives the way we see fit, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. The sole purpose of the "definition" in this case is to prevent one segment of the population from partaking in what the population as a whole considers to be an important part of life. It is indeed tyrrany of the masses.

Speaking of definitions, you haven't answered my question.

But I agree they should be allowed to partake if they so choose. (Actually, I really don't care one way or the other, but I do see a distinct injustice in things such as denied visitation rights.)
I apologize, I must have missed it. Are you referring to my definition of a Constitutional right?

If so, it's very simple: a right defined Constitutionally. Does that preclude other rights? Of course not. But I believe that even the rights explicitly granted within the Constitution must be realistically interpretted.

For instance, does the 2nd Amendment mean we all have the right to build nuclear arms? Naturally, no.

The 9th Amendment is tricky. It's definition seems to vary from one political ideology to the next. At its core it defends the rights not explicitly defined in the Constitution, but clearly implied (presumption of innocence, privacy, travel, choice of food and drink, judicial review, jury of peers, etc). Both sides regularly like to twist it to mean what they want it to mean.

For instance, the social liberals that want gay marriage to be applicable regularly ignore that one should have a right to own a resturaunt that uses sodium liberally.

The 9th Amendment has been used to create judicial precedence, which I find to be the most dangerous threat our republic faces. Regularly judges apply the 9th to a plethora of cases which somehow gives justification to further, similar cases regardless of whether or not the precedence is based upon a correct interpretation of the law.

Quite frankly, I believe the 9th Amendment has been used as a tool to legislate from the bench.

Going back to an earlier point, I refer to my analogy about Ramadan. Considering that even an explicit right (that one which allows us to bear arms) can be regulated in the name of common sense, why then can we not regulate the use of a term in order to advance a cause while preserving the meaning of a term which many hold dear? Hell, even most eveyone here believes in some restriction on marriages.

Ultimately, because the issue is unclear the authority should exist with the states to define marriage. However, the RIGHTS pertaining to the word would fall under the 9th Amendment - not the word itself.

Hopefully this better states my position. Sorry about the "wall of text".

By the way, despite Mookie's assurances to the contrary, I predict the Supreme Court will overturn this decision. Likely it will take the typical party line divide, but I suspect that even a more liberal justice will vote this one down.

Okay, you got me there. Once again I was expecting more of what I usually see, which is the belief that the Constitution grants us our rights, so the ones not mentioned don't count (resulting in my constant references to Madison).

I believe in the right to both. In the case of the restaurant the owners should probably be required to advertise the use of sodium, in the interest of public safety, but there it is. I guess I just believe in too much freedom.

I haven't studied modern social and legal conditions to form a fair assessment of that. I do see a great many accusations of 'Legislating from the bench' that I question, if not actually disagree with. Again, with my head planted firmly in the past, I see the first case of that in American law being John Marshall's famous decision in Marbury vs Madison. Marshall established the Supreme Court's status as the prime interpreter of the Constitution by ruling against himself. Agree with it or not, it was brilliant.

The common sense you speak of in the right to bear arms involves public safety. I think the question here is not one of common sense, but prejudice. Most of the people who "hold the meaning dear" don't seem to have done so until their morality was offended.

You could end up being right on that. The challenge issued is one of interpretation, but the sole ground the judge can make this decision is Constitutionality, otherwise the voters do have the legal right to make that decision. If the Appeals Court and the Supreme court uphold the decision, then that is that. If either court overturns it in favor of the vote, then that is also that (at least until the next challenge).

This debate has become heated, but has remained at least semi-civil. I always fall on the side of freedom - at least as I percieve it - but we're not really going to decide anything here except perhaps to influence one another in some small way.

And my friend who told me about the ancient Greeks? He is firmly opposed to gay marriage, but his grounds are that if marriage requires a license then it is the state's priveledge to create the rules for the issuance of that license, just as with any other license.

If the social core-institution of "family=1 woman, 1 man, children" is given special status and protection by the socieity and state, we must no be bothered by forms and models of partnerships of people not forming such family. Me must not bother for how Lesbians live together, gay men, or how singles like I live.

Unfortunately, this isnot only about basic human rights, but also money, tax reliefs, financial support for families, etc. And it must be feared by european example that by giving homo relations the same legal status like mixed couples, the special status that is to be demanded for families gets softened up by decreasing or even nullifying the relative difference in financial benefit and legal proptection between homsexuals living together, and heterosexual relation forming families.

This is bad, because the future of a society lies in families producing children. No children, no future - it's as simple as that. And this is why families are so very much more improtant than gay rights or lesbian marriages, or singles like I am. Singles like me should not enjoy the same level of protection by the state, like families. And homosexuals and lesbians also should not be given the same status and benefits like families shoild be given. I do nothing to the biological securing of my societies future. Gays and lesboians also do nothing to secure the billogical future of the society threy live in. In this regard I am as unimportnt, as they are.

It is absurd to claim same rights for gay marriages like for mixed couples forming families, and it is a vital damage to our socieiy'S selfunderstanding and recognising that if it wants to survive it must prioritize certain aspects of interhuman life. Homosexual marriages leading to same tax benefits and relativising the spoecial status and vital importance of the institution of family, are not such a priority.

And now i want recognition of my sxpecial status as single, please, and could I also please have official recignitiuon of my friendship relations to freinds or colleagues also desrving the same rights and recognitions like married hetereosexual couples raising children. Else I feel discriminated over my being-single, and I feel offended by the lacking respect for the social relations I maintain. I really think that my social relations deserve to be recognised by the state by giving them tax reliefs. It is a basic human right to maintain social relations and friendships and to live single. Why should I accept financial and legal disadvantages to gay marriages and families when singles like me essential are of the same normality and biological nature like gays, lesbians and heteros?

I really think that marchers at CST are not representative for gays and lesbian, and are just narcissistic inhibitionist freaks using the opportunity to raise provokation to the society they live in, and I also think that gay/lesbian marriage-activists are not even half as important to mankind than they assume they are. The fact that they are gay or lesbian, does nothing for mankind, nor must be their choice of form for living together with somebody be of any concern for mankind. It does not effect mankind. What effects mankind, are couples creating children and raising them.

Beyond this basic aspect, I do not care whether or not somebody is gay or not, and lives in a partnership or not. Why should I feel bothered? I only be bothered by the future of our society - and for that, neither singles living alone, like me, nor gay marriages make a positive difference. Families do, and they must be our priority. Not singles or gay marriages.

Skybird, if you haven't noticed, there are 7 billion people on this planet, giving homosexual marriage the same protections and benefits under law as heterosexual marriage has will not push us to extinction. Hell, it probably wont ever affect birth rates.
Another part of your argument seems to rest on the assumption that heterosexuals will automatically have and raise children, but this is simply false. Many are unable or choose not to. Also while on the subject, why couldn't a homosexual couple raise an adopted child?
If there must be more benefits for a couple raising a child in your mind, why not then have a separate clause in the law making it so that marriages, regardless of the sex of those involved, get benefits and protections a, while those married couples who also raise a child get a+1?
That way you keep the boon for procreation, while not denying anyone any rights.

Now that the important stuff is out of the way I would like to say that as far as the state is concerned marriage is nothing but a binding contract between two willing parties, how in the name of **** should the sex of those involved even be relevant?