California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

Well, how then do we define democracy?


Society creates its rules formal and informal. Tradition is just the informal rules if get over a long period of time.

Ok, I see a society that stagnated for a really long period of time for no other reason than it's bondage to tradition, that had to be liberated by the liberal west.

How ethno-centric. I'm sure you have studied the histories of these societies in depth to make such sweeping claims. This statement also seems to endorse imperialism/colonialism, but perhaps I am misinterpreting.

BTW, many Eastern thinkers had doubts about Western "liberalism" once examining it further. Liang Qichao, for instance, was a Chinese activist who started off advocating for Western-style "democracy." Once he actually visited the US (during the early 1900s) he became more disillusioned and cynical, understandably. It is the height of arrogance to uncritically assume that the West has somehow achieved the most liberated society.

Dubai? it is still a very traditional city despite it's appearance. Tradition and culture cannot be removed from a society. In such a case, a people will actually revert back to a previous stage. "Discovering our ancient roots" they'll say.

Why isn't it comparable? Isn't denying a legal contract a violation of a person's possible choices, and thus his/her liberty?


Well, no, in both cases you reduce utility, or liberty.


Well, the issue is that prohibition causes greater payoffs for organized crime. I didn't think you used drugs and I am not arguing from your personal drug use. I am simply moving from the point of harm to the notion that certain laws can lead to harm.


Um..... no. You simply aren't listening to the criticisms, as they are against your political views, and not your person or your practice.


Well, who is to stop them from using marijuana? I know of plenty of teens who use that and have used that in class. The issue is that alcohol, once illegalized, still did not become *that* hard to come by, and was involved in a powerful drug market. Frankly, I am criticizing your views on the drug issue, and ultimately to either understand your views or find something inconsistent about them.


Meh, I don't care.

Oh, I am being unabashedly ethnocentric. I am not bothering to study the histories in depth either as I see the proof of superiority in the pudding. I did not really endorse imperialism/colonialism so much as just think very little of indigenous system of government in the region.

Ok? So? They had doubts, so what? They all accept our systems now, and everyone knows that. And it is based upon our system that they have had their successes, and I am not going to say that they have systems that are not adapted according to their desires, but they still have systems based upon our ideas, and showed great progress when trying to bring in our ideas into their own systems. Honestly though, I am not pro-democracy, just against traditionalism, and my own ideas are deeply wedded to Western individualism anyway and down to the fundamental roots, so I doubt that I would be much impressed with an Eastern idea.


Wasn't talking about Dubai, and I know that traditions still CAN exist, but the importance of tradition cannot be understated. Culture cannot be removed from society, nobody can doubt that, but tradition, can be reduced in importance to seek dynamism. Certainly some institutions should remain, but they should remain based upon their value to individuals, not as good in and of themselves.

I support abortion and gay marriage now. I plan to become a hippie now.

1) No. Why? Because I don't see it as being a right to anyone. Marriage is what it is.


2) I read somewhere that allowing same-sex marriages reduced the divorce rate between heterosexual marriages. Yet, I still don't see a need to reduce the establishment of marriage to something that it wasn't originally meant to be. I don't see how not allowing same-sex marriage is anyones violation. The argument could have probably been made if the government was imprisoning homosexuals, and to another extent if it disallowed homosexuals to live together.

The whole "equality" thing is being in my opinion taken VERY out of context. You have men who want to become women, you have people arguing on the rights to use illicit drugs (and there are people who find these practices completely acceptable). I don't see how marriage has anything to do with homosexuals. I don't see how it has anything to do with equality, considering that many things we do is not fair or equal to others.


3) I am not going to outright say "ban these drugs!" when I have an understanding of what happened with prohibition. But I see no problem in limiting its use.

What and where is the addiction to homosexual marriage?


4) Eh, I'm still not a tyrant.

I don't quite believe this to be true. Many are not accepting of our system, whichever system it may be. They just use it so that it might be acceptable to our tastes. After all, they want business.

It's interesting how some folks here keep dodging the reality of state licensed marriage.

These same people keep bringing up their personal beliefs about what 'Americans' or 'Many Americans', find acceptable.

They won't argue the point about this...

Marriage that is licensed by the state is an action that is just like all the other state license practices.
These state practices are to be applied equally to all Adult citizens of the United States of America UNLESS that person has been sanctioned, temporarily or permanently, by the state to not receive such a license.

It has nothing to do with religion... nothing to do with 'tradition'... nothing to do with what any American 'feels' should be right or wrong.
It is an action taken by the state for the benefit of the adult citizens and it should be applied equally to ALL adult citizens... period.

But then the same folks who dodge this are the ones who seem a bit passive aggressive to me.

They like to promote themselves as being attacked.. but not attacking.
They like to promote themselves as dealing with the argument when they do nothing of the sort.
They keep offering up their personal opinions and trying to speak for others whom they have no right and probably not enough knowledge, to do so.... i.e. neighbors, towns they live in, states they live in... I seriously doubt you can speak for people you have not met, let alone learned their opinions on such a topic as this.

But hey.. after all these pages... everyone is just repeating themselves. Not a whole lot new to see here.

I really don't see it that way.

I admit I'm attacking gay marriage, but not gays or people who support them (unlike supporters who are verbally abusive).

I don't find it acceptable. I don't see it as being a constitutional right. I don't see it having to do with equality.

My state constitutionally bans same-sex marriages. I'm not complaining about my state.

Well, nothing was said AT ALL about rights in my statement. The argument is whether the government of the US should or should not allow for certain people to have a certain legal arrangement. If marriage is defined a certain way, then there is no worry about it literally changing since it will not change.

Well, the issue isn't need at all, but rather which option is better. You are reducing an ability to contract to less than it would be otherwise if you were to allow it. The issue here is partially conceptual, what if white people all got tax breaks, well then good on them, right? What if black people all had their taxes increased? Well, that is rather discriminatory, correct? Well, let's just go back to the instance where white people get tax breaks, everyone else then has relatively higher taxes and less governmental services to show for it. Therefore, an argument that everyone else is being discriminated against seems justified. The same holds for homosexuals. They are getting less rights than the average populace.

Ok, and I have a female friend who wants to be male, I think that human self-ownership implies the ability to use illicit drugs, and so on and so forth. You say these things as if they are wrong, but why? Because you don't like them? Frankly, I don't see what marriage has anything to do with government, but apparently it does. If the government is involved in such a matter, why should it merely support the cultural biases of one portion of the populace and not serve the rest, after all, this issue of "the definition of marriage" is only an issue with people who function with YOUR definition of marriage, correct? If we have the government deny marriage on the basis of one cultural group's understanding of marriage, then couldn't that constitute discrimination?


Ok, and where people see issue all relates to their own moral ideas. The issue with homosexual marriage isn't addiction, heck, a number of people are not addicted to alcohol, they just enjoyed it enough to flout the law for it. The issue here though, is that a practice like this by the government, may be seen negatively by groups of the populace and thus undermine respect for rule of law. After all, if you or somebody else thinks the marriage law to be discriminatory for basing the judgment on a definition of marriage held by a certain sect of the populace and not yourself, then the rest of the legal system will look iffier as well.

Yeah..... sure, keep on telling yourself that.

Well... that does not seem true given the fact that I am not speaking of external things such as suits and ties, but rather institutional structures which did in fact change throughout the East based upon how developed the area is. This can be seen in more market based economies arising in these areas. Given that the market is a western idea, and that this system is the provider of benefits in and of itself, and that the governments of these nations are imposing these ideas, even if their stated ideologies are supposed to oppose them, I take that as acceptance. We can talk about how Chinese hard-liners may whine about the system, but unless they are actually making real moves to change it, and unless we can think of actual benefit to the change, we can just dismiss that as whining.

Why isn't it acceptable. You are right, it is not built into the constitution. As for equality, if group X and group Y cannot get the same legal packages, for their purposes, then issues of equality can be questioned. As a past poster has likely brought up, miscegenation is also a past institute that is seen as unacceptable, not necessarily in the constitution, and where people argued that it had nothing to do with equality. Were the miscegenation restrictions on marriage fundamentally different than the current sexual restrictions today? How so? After all, traditionally people of different races did not marry.

excessive complaining about religion is a petty annoyance. ("oh nooos, i can't have my crucifix in the public mall!!")


denying someone their legal rights because of sexual preference is unacceptably wrong. ("oh nooos, i can't be with my love in the hospital because i'm not legally wed to them and so i have to leave since i'm not immediate family")

and other than the whole denial thing, there's also the waste of money on the whole debate of legislation going along with it...how much time and money was wasted on bush's amendment to "preserve the sanctity of marriage"? how much did that whole spiel violate my right to religious freedom by wasting my tax money on debating an issue that's obviously religious in nature and has no place in legislation just due to the obvious christian nature of the legislature rather less the appalling idea of an amendment to the constitution taking away rights and freedoms rather than granting it. i think the last amendment to do that was the prohibition of alcohol.

1) The "fight" over same-sex marriage is about rights. Hence why I put it there.


2) There is discrimination everywhere, from our taxes to those eligible to receive aid, even affirmative action. Again, this absolutely has nothing to do with MARRIAGE which has always been understood to be between a man and a woman. It is a ritual. It is meant to limit who is allowed to marry based on sexuality (and other contributing factors), because it by itself implies a union between a male and a female. What matters love? What even matters children (considering that not all married couples are able to have children)? The only thing marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The government doesn't allow me to marry two women. That is discrimination, is it not? Where's my liberty to freely marry two or more women?


3) The Government has the responsibility to look after the people who may otherwise be too ignorant or foolish to decide on things on their own. That is why we have laws to prevent people to actively do whatever enters their mind. The Supreme Court, whom we all know interpret the Constitution, decided that it doesn't go against Constitution or Law to do the things they've allowed people to do. But how do we know what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when it was written? That would also beg the question of should it matter today? How much should society give up in order to accommodate its citizens? When it is to decide it realizes that another group of people are going to be marginalized. Thus, what is truly meant by EQUALITY? Does it mean that I can do whatever I want, and so should others? Does it mean because they have wealth I should too? Or does it mean we should have equal opportunities in that which is best for and serves society? How would allowing drugs to be freely available be best for citizens? Equally, why should the state be complacent to allow SRT? How does it effectively help in anything and create an atmosphere where the Constitution is followed as intended?

What does marriage have to do with homosexuality? The Courts should understand what marriage is, and what it is not. The idea of, and the possibility for, same-sex marriages is and was a foreign idea until recently.


4) If homosexuals were to be allowed to create a union, such a union cannot be considered marriage as generally understood. It would have to go by a different name, and most certainly not with the same legalities considering that a heterosexual union is obviously different from a union between homosexuals.


5) Everyone is a tyrant if we were to have loose definitions of it.







I don't agree with that, neither is it true. The only cultures that prohibit miscegenation are the Yazidi, Parsi, and Israeli (from what I know right now and which has more to do with religion). Historically, colonial states prohibited miscegenation.

There is nothing in the Abrahamic traditions that forbid miscegenation. In Islam it is actually forbidden to discriminate on race. In Judaism, as long as a person is Jewish, it is permissible (Read the bible, there are countless stories of marriages between the Jews and foreign tribes). In the Dharmic religions, miscegenation is not forbidden (although there is a following of caste system). If you look to the east, you are confronted with COUNTLESS different ethnic groups. To say that traditionally people did not marry different races is ignorant to that fact. Look at how diverse Central and South Asia is. Miscegenation certainly was not forbidden, and it was not anything similar to the practices in the Americas (US/Brazil) or the Yazid/Parsi tribes where laws were made to forbid it.

One exception in the Americas is/was in Hispanic cultures where it was encouraged to intermarry.

Petty annoyance? Well, is it an annoyance to you to have a crucifix and ten commandments in public? Fair enough, it is an annoyance and disturbing for me to see gays being allowed to marry.

Didn't Slick Willie sign the Defense of Marriage Act?