Same sex marriage

[KichigaiNeko]

why should marriage legislation exist at all?

Legalities of property and hereditary.

[Brian37]

You guys are talking about history of social norms and I am talking about law. Either allow gays to get married or get government out of ALL marriages. Since the law document of a marriage wont go away, then the right thing, the constitutional thing is EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

To not allow gays to get married is to treat a fellow citizen as second class.

[KichigaiNeko]

You guys are talking about history of social norms and I am talking about law. Either allow gays to get married or get government out of ALL marriages. Since the law document of a marriage wont go away, then the right thing, the constitutional thing is EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

To not allow gays to get married is to treat a fellow citizen as second class.

Can't agree more Brian. The LAW of the land has precedence over anything else

[kılıç_mehmet]

Please can you explain how it's irrelevant for people, irrespective of their sexuality, sexual behaviour or sexual identity, who love each other to be able to celebrate their commitment to each other in the manner they wish?

Well, it isn't just a commitment they do to eachother. Marriage is a commitment that you do to the society itself. It is the foundation of the family, and therefore, the human society.
Their love...Well, it's really not that relevant. You can be in love without being married, can you not?
It's not about any of these. I know what it's all about.

Wrong. Absolutely the wrong way round. Segregation is there because people want to be assholes. There is no such thing as sexual deviancy for consenting people of sexual maturity. Marriage has respected this at various points in history. On that basis, why should marriage legislation exist at all?

Marriage legislation exists in order to provide couples with legal rights, and also to take the institution of marriage under the protection of the state itself.
The state exists to protect and serve society. I think it's only fair that it protects a most vital aspect of society.
Besides, I think you know what deviancy is. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior, caused by biological abnormalities.
I don't know why we should grant it the same social acceptance that heterosexuals enjoy.
They may be granted legal rights, but under a different context. The difference must be known and drawn with clear lines.

You guys are talking about history of social norms and I am talking about law. Either allow gays to get married or get government out of ALL marriages. Since the law document of a marriage wont go away, then the right thing, the constitutional thing is EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

To not allow gays to get married is to treat a fellow citizen as second class.

Well, give them equal legal rights, then. But marriage is something that is only between a man and a woman. The legal definition of this are outlined in many countries. Equality is only amongst equals.

[KichigaiNeko]

society can go get fucked!!

[Cyberman]

Definitions change, laws change, as society changes. An old and probably apocryphal (or at least widly inaccurate) story from somewhere in England tells of a bloke who was stopped by a policeman for some offence or other. The guy declared the arrest invalid as the officer was walking on the pavement (or sidewalk if you insist) in contravention of some obscure but unrepealed law. The officer them immediately hit him with a charge of not carrying a sword, in contravention of some other old law. My point is that laws must evolve or else fall by the wayside as they lose relevance with the society that spawned them.

However, making something legal does not necessarily make it compulsory. Around here it is currently illegal to own a firearm outside of certain very specific situations. If the law was changed tomorrow and gun ownership was legalised, does that mean I would have to rush out and stock up on UZIs and automatic shotguns? Similarly, if same-sex marriage was fully legalised, would I have to rush out to a gay bar and flash my ass(ets)?

[kılıç_mehmet]

society can go get fucked!!

Wow, you're such a rebel. Frankly, I'm sick of all of this "counterculture" movements that smell of angsty teen and hippy.
"You cannot tell me what to do!" well, they do so each time you get a parking ticket. So what really is your problem?

Definitions change, laws change, as society changes.

Change change change. Yes, changes occur. But certain things do have core definitions that do not change. One such thing is marriage. You can have a polygamous marriage, or monogamous. But it'll still be between a man and a woman.

My point is that laws must evolve or else fall by the wayside as they lose relevance with the society that spawned them.

And you say that the marriage of gays is of such importance to our society, that if we don't implement this law, marriage will die out?
Wow.

If the law was changed tomorrow and gun ownership was legalised, does that mean I would have to rush out and stock up on UZIs and automatic shotguns?

Well, you certainly can do so.

Similarly, if same-sex marriage was fully legalised, would I have to rush out to a gay bar and flash my ass(ets)?

You certainly can do so if you want to.
But this isn't about that.
Just as this marriage thing is of great symbolic value to the homosexuals, it's of great value to us.
It symbolizes the family, the family that needs to be kept alive if society wants to survive, really.

[Ben Davis]

Well, it isn't just a commitment they do to eachother. Marriage is a commitment that you do to the society itself. It is the foundation of the family, and therefore, the human society.
Their love...Well, it's really not that relevant. You can be in love without being married, can you not? It's not about any of these. I know what it's all about.

Historically, long before there was an institution of marriage, way before there were even properly formed legal structures, there were 'commitment ceremonies' and before that, there was just reproduction. Throughout the periods where these situations existed, offspring were still produced and anthropologists/biologists/historians can demonstrate that 'family' existed in a wide variety of forms.

To track the origins of marriage, you need to understand that commitment ceremonies came into existence because more people became 'monogomous' and ethics evolved. In these ceremonies, people publically announced their commitment for no other reason than 'shouting it from the rooftops'. In time, those with power over society cynically corrupted the idea of the ceremony to include all sorts of legislation which increased their power or control over society; let's remember that in the development of every marriage ceremony in every society, at first only those at the top of the hierarchy could marry, the 'commoners' could not. By the time commoners could, institutions such as ownership of the woman were already ingrained. This is what has become the standard.

So you're wrong, once again. Originally, it was only about commitment to your partners and nothing else. That's how I would prefer it to be again. Obviously you don't know what it's all about

Marriage legislation exists in order to provide couples with legal rights, and also to take the institution of marriage under the protection of the state itself.

No, those legal rights can be attained without marriage. Just ask a lawyer. That being true, you need to ask yourself why a state would choose to protect the legal institution of marriage.

Besides, I think you know what deviancy is. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior, caused by biological abnormalities.

Wrong, yet again. 'Deviancy' is an arbitrary subjective concept. Homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon as are all ranges of sexuality, sexual behaviour & sexual identification. There is no 'deviancy', just a range of human variety.

I don't know why we should grant it the same social acceptance that heterosexuals enjoy. They may be granted legal rights, but under a different context. The difference must be known and drawn with clear lines.

No, no, no! All people must be afforded the same level of legal protection, irrespective of race, creed, sexuality, artistic preference, musical taste, choice of breakfast cereal... if not, people will be harmed by arbitrary discrimination, tacitly approved by the state. That is wrong. Are you getting it yet?!

Equality is only amongst equals.

All people are born equal therefore all people must be granted equality. You're done.

[Cyberman]

Definitions change, laws change, as society changes.

Change change change. Yes, changes occur. But certain things do have core definitions that do not change. One such thing is marriage. You can have a polygamous marriage, or monogamous. But it'll still be between a man and a woman.

Until the definition changes to encompass same-sex couples. I refuse to believe you can be this dense.

My point is that laws must evolve or else fall by the wayside as they lose relevance with the society that spawned them.

And you say that the marriage of gays is of such importance to our society, that if we don't implement this law, marriage will die out?
Wow.

When you're done playing with your strawman, perhaps you'd like to read what I wrote again, because I promise you I said no such thing.

If the law was changed tomorrow and gun ownership was legalised, does that mean I would have to rush out and stock up on UZIs and automatic shotguns?

Well, you certainly can do so.

Similarly, if same-sex marriage was fully legalised, would I have to rush out to a gay bar and flash my ass(ets)?

You certainly can do so if you want to.

Likewise in both scenarios, I wouldn't have to if I didn't want to. And neither would you. It's not like the gay mafia will be coming around and painting a rainbow on your door, criticising your taste in fabrics and giving you a makeover you can't refuse. Extending equal rights to one section of society does not necessarily take away from yours.

But this isn't about that.
Just as this marriage thing is of great symbolic value to the homosexuals, it's of great value to us.
It symbolizes the family, the family that needs to be kept alive if society wants to survive, really.

And allowing same-sex couples to marry won't change that. We'll still have families, of all gender combinations.

---

Apologies to anyone offended by my resorting to a gay stereotype. It was for humorous effect only and no offence was intended. Please don't hit me.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Until the definition changes to encompass same-sex couples. I refuse to believe you can be this dense.

No, I know that. I know what you people want.
I rather have the definition that is in touch with it's roots in place.
Whatever definition you had of a marrige obviously has no real relevance to it's purpose at all.

Historically, long before there was an institution of marriage, way before there were even properly formed legal structures, there were 'commitment ceremonies' and before that, there was just reproduction. Throughout the periods where these situations existed, offspring were still produced and anthropologists/biologists/historians can demonstrate that 'family' existed in a wide variety of forms.

And did these commitment ceremonies include gays into their ranks? If so, why did those not persist?
Why did the institution of a family evolve into the core family, that consists of a husband, wife and children? Obviously there is a reason for all of this.
And there is a reason why gays were not included into the institution of the family. They never were considered to be a part of society with their open identities.

In time, those with power over society cynically corrupted the idea of the ceremony to include all sorts of legislation which increased their power or control over society

I don't know what this has to do with homosexuals, however.
I believe that the institution of marriage evolved according to the needs of society, not it's every fucking demand. Society needs core families to thrive, not families that consist of two men or women that are not able to produce life, nor take care of it as a man an a woman could.

at first only those at the top of the hierarchy could marry,

I don't know where you get your facts, but I'm sure that marriage is an already developed concept by the time people were able to write using cuneiform.
And it's concept revolved around the children, as people were reluctant to take care of a child that was not of their own, so they attached a female partner solely to themselves, that the father of the child would be known. This is what marriage was all about, friend.

By the time commoners could, institutions such as ownership of the woman were already ingrained.

"Commoner" and "Noble"...Well, I really have no idea of which timeline you speak of, but it certainly isn't the middle ages.

Originally, it was only about commitment to your partners and nothing else.

Read my damn post above. It was about forming a solid family structure, as it was relevant to the survival of the child.

That's how I would prefer it to be again.

Commitment is one thing, obviously today's marriages are not about commitment at all! For people say that marriage can be about anything as long as people agree. If both partners agree on an "open marriage" like an open relationship, they can do so. There are no limits to anything, in the world of the likes of you, friend. Then you come to me and talk about commitment. I don't think that you have committed yourself to anyone but yourself.

No, those legal rights can be attained without marriage. Just ask a lawyer. That being true, you need to ask yourself why a state would choose to protect the legal institution of marriage.

I do not need to, I know it by the law. Marriage is protected by the state under the same laws that protect the family, friend.
At least here it is. This is why you cannot break a marriage at will, you need to present something that convinces the government that your marrige should be broken apart. Just as you need society to approve of your marriage, you need the society to disapprove of it.

No individual is above society, no individual is above the law.

Wrong, yet again. 'Deviancy' is an arbitrary subjective concept. Homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon as are all ranges of sexuality, sexual behaviour & sexual identification. There is no 'deviancy', just a range of human variety.

If I were to tell you that incest is Okay, and it's normal, and it's "natural" because it commonly occurs in nature, would you call it normal? I would not, certainly. Hell yes, for science is subjective in itself. If something is not normal, it's not. This is not a philosophical matter.

No, no, no! All people must be afforded the same level of legal protection, irrespective of race, creed, sexuality, artistic preference, musical taste, choice of breakfast cereal...

Well, have your legal protection. Not everyone is granted the same privilages though. Why can't you live in the white house, friend? Why can't I? Why am I not granted the same privilages that a diplomat enjoys?
Your world does not exist, friend. Marriage is very much alike this concept. It does not apply to everyone.

if not, people will be harmed by arbitrary discrimination,

Who? Really?

All people are born equal therefore all people must be granted equality. You're done.

And I guess that your equality shapes itself around marriage. How about your wealth? If you were born as an equal to Prince Charles, why do you have to take the bus when you go to work?
Equality is merely a word on paper. It doesn't exist.

When you're done playing with your strawman, perhaps you'd like to read what I wrote again, because I promise you I said no such thing.

So you state that the current form of marriage is still relevant to society? I know it is.

Likewise in both scenarios, I wouldn't have to if I didn't want to. And neither would you. It's not like the gay mafia will be coming around and painting a rainbow on your door, criticising your taste in fabrics and giving you a makeover you can't refuse. Extending equal rights to one section of society does not necessarily take away from yours.

Well, equal rights, or better said, privilages, are only amongst equals, friend.
We are not on equal terms with homosexuals when it comes to marriage.

And allowing same-sex couples to marry won't change that. We'll still have families, of all gender combinations.

But family needs to be of a single gender combination. This is how it was born, and this is how it has come to this day.
All gender combinations. Really, the polygamy thread was already a weird one, as I was expecting things like a marriage in which three gays and two lesbians are married to eachother, how is that for a combination?
And how well would that make a family? It would make for a good freakshow, though. Similarly, a family that consists of two males or two females makes for a good freakshow. It's uncommon and will never be common unless these people live in their own country, where they form the majority and form law and society according to their own will.